In some ways a surprising turn of events after all that has been reported in the past week. Jerry Sandusky told Bob Costas in an interview that he is not guilty, that he did not do any of the acts he is accused of and that he is not a pedophile. He even said the shower incident that McQueary described was not a sexual incident and that his attorney and he believe they have identified the young man supposedly involved in the incident and that he will verify that it was not a sexual incident.

 

I haven't read the grand jury report. Did McQueary say he actually witnessed a sexual act taking place? Based on what I saw in the Costas report, it sounds like McQueary didn't actually see anything happen but was relying on sounds he heard etc.

 

What if Sandusky is found not guilty?

 

Has there been a rush to judgment on Paterno?

 

Haven't there been more than one person accuse Sandusky of pedophile acts?

Edited November 15, 201114 yr by Voice of Reason

In some ways a surprising turn of events after all that has been reported in the past week. Jerry Sandusky told Bob Costas in an interview that he is not guilty, that he did not do any of the acts he is accused of and that he is not a pedophile. He even said the shower incident that McQueary described was not a sexual incident and that his attorney and he believe they have identified the young man supposedly involved in the incident and that he will verify that it was not a sexual incident.

 

I haven't read the grand jury report. Did McQueary say he actually witnessed a sexual act taking place? Based on what I saw in the Costas report, it sounds like McQueary didn't actually see anything happen but was relying on sounds he heard etc.

 

What if Sandusky is found not guilty?

 

Has there been a rush to judgment on Paterno?

 

Haven't there been more than one person accuse Sandusky of pedophile acts?

 

 

Sadly we will probably not know for a long while and Joe Pa will likely not be around once its all said and done with.

O.J. Simpson claimed innocence too.

He claimed that he is not a pedophile and that no sexual acts were performed, yet he admits to showering with young boys (approximately age 10). My question is, if you are innocent, like you claim, why would you as a grown man shower with 10 year old boys. IMO there is never an "ok" time for a grown man to shower with 10 year old boys.

 

Now as for what McQueary saw or thought he saw is a different part of this story. This is going to go back and forth for a long long time. The verdict will come out long after JoePa has passed.

McQueary described in detail what he saw. Sandusky is trying to claim generalities of an incident. That's why the grand jury believed McQueary. I've seen some "experts" on child abuse say that it is very hard to make up the details about what McQueary is saying happened.

It took Sandusky 16 seconds to tell Costas that he is not sexually attracted to young boys. He's lying...

Sandusky also said he hugged the kids and touched their legs in a non-sexual way. I don't believe him. I hope he gets a fair trial, but he's guilty as charged, IMO.

 

If you actually read the grand jury indictment, there are a lot of people who apparently testified against him to various degrees, whether it is McQueary actually witnessing the act (which the report says he did), or others who can testify of strange or suspicious behavior. To me, it would be one thing if it was one victim and his word against Sandusky, but it looks to me like they have a lot of witnesses against him.

It took Sandusky 16 seconds to tell Costas that he is not sexually attracted to young boys. He's lying...

 

I agree.

The man just sounds creepy....He and his attorney did themselves no favors with that interview IMO.

The man just sounds creepy....He and his attorney did themselves no favors with that interview IMO.

I thought agreeing to the interview itself was a poor move.

Sandusky also said he hugged the kids and touched their legs in a non-sexual way. I don't believe him. I hope he gets a fair trial, but he's guilty as charged, IMO.

 

If you actually read the grand jury indictment, there are a lot of people who apparently testified against him to various degrees, whether it is McQueary actually witnessing the act (which the report says he did), or others who can testify of strange or suspicious behavior. To me, it would be one thing if it was one victim and his word against Sandusky, but it looks to me like they have a lot of witnesses against him.

 

Totally agree. I asked another poster about that very topic in a different thread. There are mulitple victims and witnesses alleging the general same activity and about 8 different boys and multiple different incidents. They can't all be lying right?

The man just sounds creepy....He and his attorney did themselves no favors with that interview IMO.

 

I think I understand his motive for doing the interview, which is getting his side of the story out, but it really came across as a bad idea to start with and then his responses during the interview didn't help.

Can't make this stuff up....Apparantly his attorney, at 41, impregnated a 17 year old. :lol:

 

His autobiography is title "Touched".

Can't make this stuff up....Apparantly his attorney, at 41, impregnated a 17 year old. :lol:

 

His autobiography is title "Touched".

 

I thought the attorney was 49 at the time (not that it matters).

I thought the attorney was 49 at the time (not that it matters).

 

Maybe he was, I could've misread it.