Jerry Sandusky thread

[Matthean]

Somebody in the comments brought up the issue of him maybe being a pathological liar. I could see that as being the case. People will deny like crazy of being a pedophile anyway, but a pathological liar will even more so get away with it.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Losing my respect for NBC by the minute. Unless they absolutely tear him a new one as part of airing this interview.

Look, NBC is doing something every other network would do if they had the chance. They can ask him all the tough questions they want, but he can answer them anyway he chooses. He'll get his day in court and if the prosecution can back up the evidence that was in the grand jury indictment, you won't have to worry about him giving interviews for quite awhile.

[Senator]

Ben, if you addressed this earlier, and if so, sorry, but I am curious as someone who worked in a youth organization forever, did something crazy like this ever happen? Not to this level, but some guy trying to infiltrate a youth organization for personal benefit? I'll hang up and listen.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Uh, Jerry, that's not a leg. This will be a classic case of admitting to everything except the money shot.

"Listen Bob, if I'm guilty of anything, it's sexually abusing 8 children."

[cartman]

He didn't give a 100% denial. He admitted:

"I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact."

He didn't have the intent, it just by chance ended up happening.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

He didn't give a 100% denial. He admitted:

He didn't have the intent, it just by chance ended up happening.

He was definitely heavily coached. The state has to prove intent for sexual gratification (not necessarily "getting off", just more general sexual-themed gratification). It's not a crime to touch a kid's leg, or even shower with him, without that intent (though in our society, a jury is going to infer that intent with the showering most times, I would think, but you'd still need some evidence of it)

Edit: I should add, the state only needs to prove sexual intent for the the touching charges. Obviously, for rape, you only have to show intent for the rape.

[Young Drachma]

Wow, going on the PR offensive with "I showered with them and touched them, but didn't have sex..." is pretty fucking insane.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by cartman

He didn't give a 100% denial. He admitted:



He didn't have the intent, it just by chance ended up happening.

Something tells me McQueary didn't see something disturbing when Sandusky was merely bumping into a kid.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Senator

Ben, if you addressed this earlier, and if so, sorry, but I am curious as someone who worked in a youth organization forever, did something crazy like this ever happen? Not to this level, but some guy trying to infiltrate a youth organization for personal benefit? I'll hang up and listen.

Happened three times in the past 18(?) months just in our city alone. I would assume that it is not that unusual.

[Young Drachma]

The Daily - Breaking: Sandusky Lawyer Impregnated A Teen

…Defense attorney Joe Amendola, 63, representing Sandusky in the sexual molestation case roiling Penn State and Joe Paterno’s legendary football program, impregnated an under-age teen and later married her, The Daily has learned.

According to documents filed with Centre County Courthouse, Amendola served as the attorney for Mary Iavasile’s emancipation petition on Sept. 3, 1996, just weeks before her 17th birthday.

Around the same time, Iavasile became pregnant with Amendola’s child, and gave birth before she turned 18, her mother, Janet Iavasile, told The Daily.
He was born in 1948 and was around 49 at the time….

[Grover]

Don't know if this has been mentioned above, but I saw on SportsCenter that Sandusky lived around 50 feet away from an elementary school.

As far as getting an interview, he's definitely entitled to say his piece, however unbelievable it may be.

He'll see how it feels when he goes to prison.

[Matthean]

Bah. Nevermind.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Senator

Ben, if you addressed this earlier, and if so, sorry, but I am curious as someone who worked in a youth organization forever, did something crazy like this ever happen? Not to this level, but some guy trying to infiltrate a youth organization for personal benefit? I'll hang up and listen.

Well, "trying to" is hard to say for sure. It never happened to my knowledge in any of my YL areas of responsibility in 14 years, and it is pretty rare in YL all around, but (as it was explained to me) YL isn't a prime target. It's kind of like that old joke about two guys encountering a bear and one of them putting on tennis shoes because "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to outrun YOU!" Basically, there are dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of organizations in a city the size of Atlanta that don't have enough checks in place to help prevent this sort of stuff, and the pedophiles target those. YL pays for a criminal background check for every staff person and volunteer, has a pretty extensive application process with reference checks, and (at least in my area) requires months of training before you're ever in contact with kids. As it was explained to us by someone in HR, just *having* all that paperwork and process in place pushes 'em away and toward the organizations that do much less.

Beyond that, YL really just started middle school ministry in earnest in the Southeast around a decade ago, so we were talking all high schoolers. Yeah, I'm sure there's some psychomumbojumbo out there about it still being pedophilia, but my sniff test tells me it's something entirely different (but still illegal, and it should be) when a 23-year-old guy gets the hots for a 16-year-old girl who looks like she's 25, as opposed to a 58-year-old with a 10-year-old. I *do* know of cases of the former in YL, and in every case, everyone involved agreed that the guy wasn't some monster who preyed on YL, but someone who got in for the right reasons, and then his fleshly desires just got the better of him. Really, if you're a 23-year-old guy looking for some 16-year-old action, there are much better and more convenient ways than YL. YL asks for a bigger time and training commitment out of volunteer youth workers than just about any organization out there.

So, a much shorter answer would be: "Yes, they definitely prey on organizations that work with young people, but for a variety of reasons, the particular organization that I worked for wasn't a prime target."

[MizzouRah]

He'll probably off himself before it goes to trial.

[EagleFan]

That Sandusky interview is freaking creepy.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

That Sandusky interview is freaking creepy.

Fuck yeah it is. It is on SC right now and I am thoroughly disturbed by this dude.

[Jas_lov]

Yeah, how was he a coach on Paterno's staff for so long? The guy is a creep.

[EagleFan]

In hindsight showing with them was a bad idea? If there's not something in your brain that tells you showering with an underage boy and touching their leg is a bad idea to begin with you have serious issues.

He was thrown with the "Are you sexually attracted to underage boys?" question. First classic tell that someone is lying is stalling and repeating the question. What's he do, stalls and repeats the question. Then he tries to dance around coming out with a direct answer. I still don't think he actually said no, just that he likes to be around them or some horse**** like that.

I have a much worse opinion of Paterno after hearing Sandusky tonight.

[Grover]

When Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to young boys, his long roundabout answer about loving to be around children but not being sexually attracted to them... that was the creepiest moment of the entire interview.

[Matthean]

Just watched the clip from ESPN so it's not the whole interview, but it was interesting how quick and resounding he kept saying "No" when asked if he ever talked to Paterno about this.

McQueary is coming out and saying he did go in and stop Sandusky back in 2002 and that he did the right thing, and there is misinformation about him out there.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Grover

When Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to young boys, his long roundabout answer about loving to be around children but not being sexually attracted to them... that was the creepiest moment of the entire interview.

+11111111111111111


It was almost like his brain wouldn't let him come right out and say no. You ask anyone that is not a pedophile that question and you will get a quick and decisive answer.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Yeah, how was he a coach on Paterno's staff for so long? The guy is a creep.

Program success won the day. Sandusky was a coach for as long as he was, regardless of creepiness because he was brilliant defensive coordinator who was instrumental in the creation of "Linebacker U".

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Program success won the day. Sandusky was a coach for as long as he was, regardless of creepiness because he was brilliant defensive coordinator who was instrumental in the creation of "Linebacker U".

Hope those in the know who continue to feel that it was justified and worth it are put on trial along with his scumbag ass for the coverup and sued into the goddamn poorhouse.

[Matthean]

"I could say that I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact," said Sandusky.

This after Costas directly asked if he thought he was innocent of all 40 charges and being surprised Sandusky was claiming innocence. I really don't think "I could say that I have done some of those things" would be the first thing I would say after trying to prove I was innocent of 40 charges. How he said "without intent of sexual contact" seemed like he was saying he didn't have the intent, but it doesn't mean those things didn't happen.

[Subby]

THATS NOT A LEG!

[Young Drachma]

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grover

When Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to young boys, his long roundabout answer about loving to be around children but not being sexually attracted to them... that was the creepiest moment of the entire interview.

Yeah, I can't believe his lawyer allowed him to give that interview. And I can't believe he wasn't coached better.

[Matthean]

I wonder how authentic these witnesses they are suddenly finding who are denying anything happening are actually credible.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

McQueary used to live with current head coach Tom Bradley.

There's a bunch of this stuff showing up on twitter these days. This, and some connection between Sandusky, Jim Caldwell (now Colts head coach) and the UVA job, that UVA wanted to hure Sandusky and Caldwell would have been his right-hand man, but "his devotion to the charity" was a concern. Also, that Sandusky's father quit his job to start a kids' charity, and Sandusky grew up in the boarding house his dad ran.

[King of New York]

I thought that Costas handled that interview well. He did not showboat, but he did not shy away from tough questions either.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

He'll probably off himself before it goes to trial.

I gotta think it's -500 that he offs himself in the near future. The interview makes him seem obsessed with attempting to set the record straight(and failing miserably)

[Butter]

There is no way he commits suicide. He would only commit suicide if he felt some overwhelming sense of remorse, which would stem from having done something wrong.

I don't think he thinks he did anything wrong. As someone said above, there are certain pathological behaviors where people can blind themselves to some awful shit. I think Sandusky believes his physical act of love is a natural extension of the "love" he feels for these kids.

I don't think that he thinks he has done anything wrong. As noted by his initial reaction toward the mom that confronted him about taking showers with the boys... that he wouldn't stop. Why should he? It's not wrong (in his mind).

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I thought that Costas handled that interview well. He did not showboat, but he did not shy away from tough questions either.

What were the tough questions, exactly? "Are you a pedophile?" "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Pretty simple questions, really. Unfortunately, Sandusky couldn't answer those without several pauses and repeating of the questions. He is one sick fuck.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I thought that Costas handled that interview well. He did not showboat, but he did not shy away from tough questions either.

Costas did an excellent job - I'd like to see him hold some workshops for "journalists" on how to conduct interviews.

[Ksyrup]

At least Sandusky didn't slip up and say he was taking his talents to South Beach.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by molson

He was definitely heavily coached. The state has to prove intent for sexual gratification (not necessarily "getting off", just more general sexual-themed gratification). It's not a crime to touch a kid's leg, or even shower with him, without that intent (though in our society, a jury is going to infer that intent with the showering most times, I would think, but you'd still need some evidence of it)

Edit: I should add, the state only needs to prove sexual intent for the the touching charges. Obviously, for rape, you only have to show intent for the rape.

Now he only needs to overcome the other ten accusers.His lawyer is an idiot for putting him on TV. Even if he was innocent, there is literally nothing he could say at this point that would change opinion on him.

I wonder how far back the accusations will end up going. And how many there will be. It's not like a guy just decides to start molesting kids in his 40s or however old he was at the time.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Just watched the clip from ESPN so it's not the whole interview, but it was interesting how quick and resounding he kept saying "No" when asked if he ever talked to Paterno about this.

McQueary is coming out and saying he did go in and stop Sandusky back in 2002 and that he did the right thing, and there is misinformation about him out there.

Ok Mike, then where was the followup? Where was the phone call to the police? How could you be a coach on the staff and see the guy visiting the school and not say something?

Sorry, Mike, you can try topspin this, but if you cannot prove you went to the police, you still lose in my book.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

What were the tough questions, exactly? "Are you a pedophile?" "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Pretty simple questions, really. Unfortunately, Sandusky couldn't answer those without several pauses and repeating of the questions. He is one sick fuck.

I don't mean tough in terms of complicated versus simple, I mean tough in terms of confronting key issues head on. Plenty of interviewers [ping: Barbara Walters] would have just lobbed sympathetic softballs in return for getting the scoop, and Costas did not do that.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I don't mean tough in terms of complicated versus simple, I mean tough in terms of confronting key issues head on. Plenty of interviewers [ping: Barbara Walters] would have just lobbed sympathetic softballs in return for getting the scoop, and Costas did not do that.

Ok gotcha. I have never been a Costas fan, he kinda comes off as a pompous ass imho. As others have said, why the fuck is NBC even interviewing this guy?

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Ok gotcha. I have never been a Costas fan, he kinda comes off as a pompous ass imho. As others have said, why the fuck is NBC even interviewing this guy?

The 145 Botox injections he gets daily to his face is what gets me.

[Bisbo]

Ping: Sandusky

Get yourself a criminal defense attorney who knows what the hell he's doing.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Bisbo

Ping: Sandusky

Get yourself a criminal defense attorney who knows what the hell he's doing.

No need for that. He's doing just fine now.

They just need to make sure he goes into the general population when he is locked up. See how he likes it when he is touched in the shower without his permission.

[RomaGoth]

I am still at a loss for words as to how nobody said anything about this or did anything. From McQueary to Paterno to a janitor and who the hell else knew about it....

Why was it so difficult for anyone to do the right thing?

[Pumpy Tudors]

If Sandusky goes to prison and ends up in general population (the GP part is highly unlikely, I'm sure), they're just going to kill him. He literally won't survive his first day in prison if they put him in pop. Prisoners don't rape child molesters. Prisoners kill child molesters.

Anyway, I think he should keep talking to the media while he can. Let the guy dig an even bigger hole for himself.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

What were the tough questions, exactly? "Are you a pedophile?" "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

Pretty simple questions, really. Unfortunately, Sandusky couldn't answer those without several pauses and repeating of the questions. He is one sick fuck.

I think asking how Sandusky thought he was innocent when there are 40 counts out there was a solid question.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I think asking how Sandusky thought he was innocent when there are 40 counts out there was a solid question.

Semantics here, but a "tough" question is different than a "solid" question. Not so much blaming Costas for any of this as I am wondering how NBC allowed this in the first place. What could any of them possibly have gained from this ridiculous interview? We all know Sandusky is a sick piece of shit and regardless of what he would have said in that interview, I doubt people are going to change their collective mind on that.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Semantics here, but a "tough" question is different than a "solid" question. Not so much blaming Costas for any of this as I am wondering how NBC allowed this in the first place. What could any of them possibly have gained from this ridiculous interview? We all know Sandusky is a sick piece of shit and regardless of what he would have said in that interview, I doubt people are going to change their collective mind on that.

Ratings. While the topic is sick and disgusting we all know people will watch it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Semantics here, but a "tough" question is different than a "solid" question. Not so much blaming Costas for any of this as I am wondering how NBC allowed this in the first place. What could any of them possibly have gained from this ridiculous interview? We all know Sandusky is a sick piece of shit and regardless of what he would have said in that interview, I doubt people are going to change their collective mind on that.

NBC would be irresponsible NOT to do this interview. This is currently the biggest story in America right now. If Sandusky agrees to an interview or proposes the idea of an interview NBC HAS to do it.

I don't see how doing the interview was really going to help Sandusky, but that's beside the point.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Ratings. While the topic is sick and disgusting we all know people will watch it.

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

NBC would be irresponsible NOT to do this interview. This is currently the biggest story in America right now. If Sandusky agrees to an interview or proposes the idea of an interview NBC HAS to do it.

I don't see how doing the interview was really going to help Sandusky, but that's beside the point.

Yeah I get the ratings thing, but it would be nice if just once....someone took the high road in this country and didn't glorify disgusting shit like this (glares at ESPN)...

[Grover]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Yeah I get the ratings thing, but it would be nice if just once....someone took the high road in this country and didn't glorify disgusting shit like this (glares at ESPN)...

While I agree with this to an extent, this is something ESPN *HAS* to jump on. It's arguably the biggest story in collegiate sports in quite some time. They have to play the Fox News / MSNBC route on a story like that.

Even though I wish they wouldn't.