The Penn State Child-Sex Abuse Scandal Thread...Hammer dropped on PSU...sanctions galore.

[651akathepaul]

Creepy interview last night. Just creepy.

 

[darthska]

DCAllAmerican:

---

Has anyone thought maybe, just maybe, just maybe, Joe P had a "hand" in all of this? How surprised would you be if he was found to be in on the action as well?
We've all thought about it, brother. I know it hasn't been tossed around in this thread, but in person, I haven't brought this up in person ONE TIME without someone mentioning that possibility, and every time, the look on people's faces saddens me. I can see it in their eyes: "He couldn't have. There's no way.

Right? Just… he couldn't have."

And that's exactly my thought process. In Joe's defense (ONLY in regards to your reply), he displays none of the typical characteristics of a child sex offender, so I, for one, would be genuinely shocked if it came out that he were an active participant in all this as opposed to just a silent watchdog.

 

[scarsorscabs]

Listening/watching that interview and seeing the older piece on Sandusky literally made me nauseous.

I don't know if it's that I've generally become pessimistic for the first time in my life but I just have a bad feeling that Sandusky is not going to get the sentence he deserves. That's not to say he'll get away with it but if there's conflicting testimony from McQueary, at least one unidentified victim, the janitor witness who is now mentally incompetent, plus I'm sure there will be holes found in some of the stories. I guess I also think this dude should suffer for as long as possible and he likely won't experience anywhere near the pain his victims have. If he'd been caught 10+ years ago like he should have, it might be a different story.

 

[darthska]

Couple other things I wanted to throw out there:
- I guarantee no one will do serious time over any of this. Watch. Yeah, we'd all like to see the guilty hang; not gonna happen.

- Yes, you can absolutely show your innocence or guilt through your immediate response to a question. C'mon, y'all were seriously debating that?
You ask a dude named Kyle "Are you sexually attracted to little boys?", and he laughs and says "What the hell? Little boys?! Like… KIDS?! Hell mother effing no. Bring in a ploygraph on this bull *!$#. A little boy? hahaha @$%@ outta here."
Then you ask a dude named… Sandusky… the same thing, and his response is "Ummmm… define 'little boy.' Like what age? And what do you mean 'attracted'?"
You mean to tell me you're going to walk away w/ the same opinion of innocence/guilt towards both of them? Hell nah!

 

[doublejs07]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Couple other things I wanted to throw out there:
- I guarantee no one will do serious time over any of this. Watch. Yeah, we'd all like to see the guilty hang; not gonna happen.

- Yes, you can absolutely show your innocence or guilt through your immediate response to a question. C'mon, y'all were seriously debating that?
You ask a dude named Kyle "Are you sexually attracted to little boys?", and he laughs and says "What the hell? Little boys?! Like… KIDS?! Hell mother effing no. Bring in a ploygraph on this bull *!$#. A little boy? hahaha @$%@ outta here."
Then you ask a dude named… Sandusky… the same thing, and his response is "Ummmm… define 'little boy.' Like what age? And what do you mean 'attracted'?"
You mean to tell me you're going to walk away w/ the same opinion of innocence/guilt towards both of them? Hell nah!

   That's what I'm saying!  If it was me, and I knew 100% I was in the clear and the charges were beyond bogus, I'd be doing nothing short of yelling my #%+ off out of anger to prove my innocence.  The word "vehemently" couldn't even describe the way I'd plead my case.  Dude sounded DISGUSTING last night.  %!$+ was hard to listen to. 

 

[ogmikey]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

cRazy dav0 wrote:

---

if mcqueary did stop it ... then %#+ .... b/c everyone saw sandusky w/ the little boys on campus years later ... so what gives ... this is the wildest thing ever


i need to get back to skyrim ...

Ok...here's my thinking now.  Suppose McQueary's statement IS true about trying to stop Sandusky.  What's his (McQueary's) angle for staying at Penn State?  Promises???  Blackmail???  And then, what's Paterno's rationale for KEEPING Sandusky around in addition to the year overlap between telling him he won't be the coach in waiting and when he was discovered to have showered w. the boy???

  


Sandusky was told he would not be Paterno's successor in 98', this is the incident he admitted to the child's mother with cops hiding in the house and overheard his admission of guilt. McQueary caught him in the shower in 2002.

 

[rashi]

What kind of attorney would allow Sandusky to do an interview like this? He just incriminated himself. 

 

[Kimchi Papi]

rashi wrote:

---

What kind of attorney would allow Sandusky to do an interview like this? He just incriminated himself. 

The kind that's not familiar enough with criminal law to know that impregnating a 15-16 year old constitutes statutory rape....

  

 

[RyGuy45]

Mary Iavasile was either 16 or 17, and Joe Amendola was 49.


Sigh...

 

[darthska]

psk2310:

---

rashi:

---

What kind of attorney would allow Sandusky to do an interview like this? He just incriminated himself. 

The kind that's not familiar enough with criminal law to know that imprzegnating a 15-16 year old constitutes statutory rape...
- Sandusky: But admitting that I shower w/ boys? Isn't that admitting child sex abuse? And you admitting you got an underage girl pregnant, isn't that admitting statutory rape?
- attorney: Oh, no,no… we're good. Showering w/ a little boy is just horseplaying, nothing more. And I'm pretty sure I can't be accused of statutory rape, cuz that's only if you do her in the butt.
- Sandusky: Yeah, I think that's what I heard, too. Well I'm gonna go do this interview now. So we're good on me saying I showered w/ these kids?
- attorney: I think so. Probably. Yeah, yeah, we're fine. Most likely.

Freaking Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb are going to 'idiot' their way to a mistrial. Watch.

 

[jbone2308]

The Attorney is acting like he's on Sanduskys side. He gonna take an 'L' for justice on this pedo.

 

[af1 1982]

I feel like you have to have no soul to be a defense attorney. It is one of the most dishonest professions you can have.

 

[bearcat23]

Originally Posted by af1 1982

I feel like you have to have no soul to be a defense attorney. It is one of the most dishonest professions you can have.

Right. The Supreme Court is absurd and foolish. Why honor someone's right to counsel. Guess attorneys should just pack it in and not represent defendants. Sounds like that'll work well.

 

[651akathepaul]

McQueary is just trying to save face at this point. Either that or he lied to a grand jury.

 

[darthska]

Bearcat23:

---

af1 1982:

---

I feel like you have to have no soul to be a defense attorney. It is one of the most dishonest professions you can have.
Right. The Supreme Court is absurd and foolish. Why honor someone's right to counsel. Guess attorneys should just pack it in and not represent defendants. Sounds like that'll work well.
Bro, there are long-tenured defense attorneys that will tell you it's a soulless profession.

They do it out of justice for the accused, not out of morality.

 

[bearcat23]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Bearcat23:

---

af1 1982:

---

I feel like you have to have no soul to be a defense attorney. It is one of the most dishonest professions you can have.

Right. The Supreme Court is absurd and foolish. Why honor someone's right to counsel. Guess attorneys should just pack it in and not represent defendants. Sounds like that'll work well.
Bro, there are long-tenured defense attorneys that will tell you it's a soulless profession.

They do it out of justice for the accused, not out of morality.
Justice/ Morality. Can you have one without the other? Philosophical debate right around the corner. 

  

 

[af1 1982]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

Bearcat23:

---

Right. The Supreme Court is absurd and foolish. Why honor someone's right to counsel. Guess attorneys should just pack it in and not represent defendants. Sounds like that'll work well.

Bro, there are long-tenured defense attorneys that will tell you it's a soulless profession.

They do it out of justice for the accused, not out of morality.

Justice/ Morality. Can you have one without the other? Philosophical debate right around the corner. 

Why are you so butthurt Bearcat? Are you can attorney?

 

[CP1708]

I was done the moment I heard the hemming and hawwing to the question....."am I attracted sexually to young boys......?"  When you repeat a question that was just asked of you, you're buying time.  The fact he still fumbled his way thru the answer is mind numbing to me.  Like Ska said, someone asks me that question and I'd be banging my phone on the counter and being like "what the @#$% you talkin son"? 

  This guy was literally thinking it over in his own mind, gee, I dunno, lemme think.....naw, naw I ain't like that. 

 

That testimony there needs to be allowed, but again, I agree, somehow, some @#$%^& way, these guys are skating.  Crooked judges, missing DA's, weird @#$ lawyers, this guy is getting out of this.  Look what we just saw with Casey Anthony.  Granted, Dusky isn't a pretty white girl, but the legal system is still the same garbage, and Dusky has home court.  He got all the power on his side.

Let him slide, then send someone in to torpedo that %*+$#@!%%$#$.  That'll be the end of that. 

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

This was talked about last night...and I DO see some of the parallels.

In comparison to Michael Jackson, many people who are in his corner are saying the SAME things. "He's just an overgrown kid." We all know the allegations brought against Mike, but people defended his behavior with children till they were blue in the face. %%$+, we had discussions on NT where certain folks thought it was just in Mike's nature to be as affectionate towards children as he was. I even remember a NTer going as far as saying they'd have no problem letting their child spend the night in the neverland ranch w. MJ

Anyways, I'm wondering (for those who defended Mike), what's your stance on Sandusky?

Terrible comparison.  Are you really going to compare sleeping fully clothed in the same bed with someone to showering with another person? 

 

[bearcat23]

Butthurt? I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of your statement. You made a generalization about "defense attorneys," stating that the entire profession is dishonest. Without a defense, the entire justice system fails. Without those willing to provide that defense, the entire justice system fails. Call it what you'd like, but in an attempt to disuade those from conducting a Salem redux at Penn St., you may want to reconsider your position. You, as a Penn St. Student,  should be careful with the generalizations Never know how slippery that slope is.

You can call Sandusky's attorney whatever you'd like.

Back on Topic

 

[licensed to ball]

Not to derail the topic, but I just wanted to point out that the way Bob Costas handled that interview was superb. Especially when he only found out he was going to interview Sandusky 15 minutes prior to the actual interview 

Costas kept his cool and asked all the right questions. Props to him.

But man...those answers were so creepy and upsetting 

 

[anotherprodigy]

For someone who has constantly combated the use of generalizations in this thread, I'm surprised that af1 made the same boneheaded mistake.
I feel like you have no soul to still be a supporter of JoePa and PSU. It is one of the the most dangerous, and dishonest outlooks you can have (sounds ridiculous).

 

[anotherprodigy]

I'm wondering what are the legal ramifications of Bob's interview? The prosecutor has less to prove, now that Sandusky confirmed that he was present in the shower that day with an underage boy. The state supposedly couldn't locate or identify that victim. So, why confirm any of those details? They must be planning on placing that victim on the stage and having him characterize Sandusky as an upstanding citizen.
I don't know what made me cringe more, Sandusky's creepy delivery or the sheer fact that his lawyer thought it wise to grant Costas that interview.
Maybe this case is shaping up to be more like Sleepers than we originally anticipated and his lawyer is throwing the case.

 

[gunna get it]

http://www.pennlive.com/m...e_of.html?mobRedir=false

Yikes.
___________________


Also, Larry Brown (not sure how reputable) is doing some investigation and is piecing together confirmation that Sandusky was "forced out"

 

[lalph rauren]

damn i wonder how the vibe is around campus lol