Doesn't matter now. The prosecution doesn't have to prove that Sundusky showered with kids because he ADMITTED to it in the interview. Before that, the prosecution would have had to lay the groundwork that the shower wasn't a one time thing. Sandusky just saved the prosecution a whole bunch of work on that motive. It's always a bad move when the defendant takes the stand. It's even worse when they agree to be interviewed.

 

I'm not sure how you get that. Showering with kids is not against the law. In all 50 states, you must prove a sexual contact and that the sexual contact was for the purpose of sexual gratification. Not gonna get there without the kids testimony.

Everyone I've heard talk about this has said he came off terribly unconvincing and that the whole thing was weird. I'm curious what his angle would be for doing such an interview. Is this part of some kind of a legal strategy to bias potential jurors or something? Did he really think he would sway public opinion? Is this just a symptom of his pathology - hubris and a belief that he is normal?

Edited November 15, 201114 yr by Habib

I agree with you. There are not multiple people accusing him of anal sex with a child though.

 

That's a good point.

Everyone I've heard talk about this has said he came off terribly unconvincing and that the whole thing was weird. I'm curious what his angle would be for doing such an interview. Is this part of some kind of a legal strategy to bias potential jurors or something? Did he really think he would sway public opinion? Is this just a symptom of his pathology - hubris and a belief that he is normal?

 

Motive ... create doubt. He has basically already been hung by the media and the public. By going out and saying he is not guilty, it may cause some people to at least wonder if he has a case.

Everyone I've heard talk about this has said he came off terribly unconvincing and that the whole thing was weird. I'm curious what his angle would be for doing such an interview. Is this part of some kind of a legal strategy to bias potential jurors or something? Did he really think he would sway public opinion? Is this just a symptom of his pathology - hubris and a belief that he is normal?

 

Going to play devil's advocate here: Could it be he came off as terribly unconvincing because we've already convicted him in our minds? And as to the whole thing being weird, well...I can't imagine any aspect of this situation coming off as any of us would percieve as normal, so I doubt this latest episode in the unfolding story would be any different.

Going to play devil's advocate here: Could it be he came off as terribly unconvincing because we've already convicted him in our minds? And as to the whole thing being weird, well...I can't imagine any aspect of this situation coming off as any of us would percieve as normal, so I doubt this latest episode in the unfolding story would be any different.

 

Sure, but it doesn't explain why he did the interview unless he thought he could win over people who have already made up their minds. That seems sort of implausible, especially since he didn't present a particularly strong defense, just a tepid denouncement of the charges and an admission he horsed around and showered with boys(!).

Sure, but it doesn't explain why he did the interview unless he thought he could win over people who have already made up their minds. That seems sort of implausible, especially since he didn't present a particularly strong defense, just a tepid denouncement of the charges and an admission he horsed around and showered with boys(!).

 

It's all really, really bizzare. He doesn't seem to be "Mr. Personality" from what I've heard on sound bites. HE seems weird. BUT...I'm willing to wait to see the fully range of evidence before I think that equates to pedophelia in his case. I'm having a really hard time putting it all together with the number of opportunities that were presented to stop him, if he were in fact doing what is alleged. The sheer number of people involved that let it pass make me feel we STILL don't have all the facts.

It's all really, really bizzare. He doesn't seem to be "Mr. Personality" from what I've heard on sound bites. HE seems weird. BUT...I'm willing to wait to see the fully range of evidence before I think that equates to pedophelia in his case. I'm having a really hard time putting it all together with the number of opportunities that were presented to stop him, if he were in fact doing what is alleged. The sheer number of people involved that let it pass make me feel we STILL don't have all the facts.

 

I agree, I definitely think a lot more information is going to come out, I suspect a lot more people were aware of what was going on too. I also subscribe to the maxim of innocent until proven guilty (I would admittedly be surprised if he is innocent, though). I'm curious what his strategy was here. It doesn't appear to have helped him any unless I'm missing something.

I'm not sure how you get that. Showering with kids is not against the law. In all 50 states, you must prove a sexual contact and that the sexual contact was for the purpose of sexual gratification. Not gonna get there without the kids testimony.

 

Which explains why he wasn't prosecuted in 98. Tough time getting there if all he admitted was showering with and hugging a boy.

Which explains why he wasn't prosecuted in 98. Tough time getting there if all he admitted was showering with and hugging a boy.

My 10-yr-old boy showers all by himself just fine! Why oh why oh why did all the Penn State people never even question Sandusky, and let him shower up with his "Second Mile" boys?? Not even talking about behavior (or lack there of) in the shower....I understand that group showers are not against the law. Just sick and wrong!

My 10-yr-old boy showers all by himself just fine! Why oh why oh why did all the Penn State people never even question Sandusky, and let him shower up with his "Second Mile" boys?? Not even talking about behavior (or lack there of) in the shower....I understand that group showers are not against the law. Just sick and wrong!

 

No doubt it's sick, wrong and disturbing. But going by what Hearsay is saying the 98 sting was probably going to be very tough to prove a crime was committed. I would think that they would have done it though to let the entire area know what kind of sicko they were dealing with

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.

 

I don't see how an adult would think showering with a child is okay, whether you touch them or not. :thumb:

 

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

 

My American History X class watched that interview & my exact thought was "Ugh....I think he's got to be guilty." That was the longest and most awkward pause in the history of lies.

Going to play devil's advocate here: Could it be he came off as terribly unconvincing because we've already convicted him in our minds? And as to the whole thing being weird, well...I can't imagine any aspect of this situation coming off as any of us would percieve as normal, so I doubt this latest episode in the unfolding story would be any different.

He came off terribly unconvincing because that is what he was. When asked if you are sexually attracted to young boys, the correct way to respond is a vehement "NO! I am not" because you should be appalled at the question. His response was to the effect of, ".... Am I sexually attracted to underage boys...... I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. I...but no, I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."

 

"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."

 

Does this implicate guilt? No, you are right it does not. But it sure does throw about 50 gallons of gasoline on a grease fire that you can see smoking miles away.

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty. But, that applies to the court room, the prosecution and the jury.

 

Barring some game-changing revelation, nothing will convince me of his innocence. If he goes free because the prosecution lacks physical evidence and can't pin him down on anything, then that's exactly what it is - our judicial system working as designed, to benefit the defendant and put the onus on the prosecution.

 

I don't believe people just up and decide to make up stories like McQueary's or the janitor's. And, to have them both claim that the man was Sandusky makes it more unlikely. And, if the kids were lying, would every story involve a shower with Sandusky that was preceded by working out and wrestling around, or staying the night in his basement bedroom? You'd have to assume a lot of coincidence to think he's innocent.

I agree, I definitely think a lot more information is going to come out, I suspect a lot more people were aware of what was going on too. I also subscribe to the maxim of innocent until proven guilty (I would admittedly be surprised if he is innocent, though). I'm curious what his strategy was here. It doesn't appear to have helped him any unless I'm missing something.

 

I go back to your comment about the jury pool, which none of our legal scholars have addressed. Could this interview be used as a tool to poison a jury pool during the selection process, in a way that would be an advantage to the defense?