11/05/24
November 15, 2011
Bob Costas Asks Sandusky About Penn State Abuse Scandal : On Monday evening, Jerry Sandusky broke his silence. Facing 40 counts of sexual abuse against eight boys over a 15-year span, the former Penn State defensive coach granted an exclusive interview with Bob Costas on NBC's "Rock Center." Despite conceding that he showered with these boys, Sandusky maintains his innocence.
Sandusky insists he isn't a pedophile, but admits he likes to shower naked, engage in horseplay, and soap up little boys. There is a reason defendants are typically advised by their attorneys NOT TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE. It rarely works out to their advantage.
Not only is he a pedophile, but he is a very stupid one.
posted by Atheist at 10:42 AM on November 15, 2011
It was obvious the guy is insane, but, wow.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:43 AM on November 15, 2011
It almost sounds like he really does not see anything wrong with what he did. I am going to bet he was also abused as a child and brought up seeing it as being ok. He really sounded like he was almost trying to convince himself he was innocent.
posted by Debo270 at 11:14 AM on November 15, 2011
Hopefully granting this access to Sandusky does not give the defense some sort of advantage when it comes to the juror selection or evidentiary part of the trial(s).
At least it was just a phone interview, not a groomed in-studio sit down session.
Sandusky looked tired when they put him in the back of the cruiser and he sounds tired in this interview. Wish I had some knowledge of criminal psychology. At some conscious level, he must have known his day of atonement was coming. Maybe wanted it to come, since he evidently could not stop himself. He had already stated on at least two occasions that I can think of that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
posted by beaverboard at 11:17 AM on November 15, 2011
What was the point of that? What was Sandusky trying to accomplish? He had to have noticed the climate around this thing. People are losing their jobs and reputations. If he is innocent as he claims, he should still feel guilty because Penn State is suffering because he likes to "horseplay" with young boys in the shower.
posted by bperk at 11:23 AM on November 15, 2011
That was probably the stupidest, ill advised thing he could have possibly done. Did anyone else notice Costas' demeanor? You could tell he was bordering on being physically ill just having to be in the same room with the man. Lock Sandusky up and throw away the key; it's time to thin the herd.
posted by Tinman at 12:11 PM on November 15, 2011
Did anyone else notice Costas' demeanor? You could tell he was bordering on being physically ill just having to be in the same room with the man.
Sandusky wasn't in the same room with Bob Costas, it was a phone interview.
posted by BornIcon at 12:28 PM on November 15, 2011
@icon - I only caught bits and pieces of Costas and it was obvious he was squeemish about the interview. The perils of trying to catch an interview in a sports bar. I stand corrected.
posted by Tinman at 12:33 PM on November 15, 2011
Hopefully granting this access to Sandusky does not give the defense some sort of advantage when it comes to the juror selection or evidentiary part of the trial(s).
I can't think of any other reason any halfway sentient lawyer would let him do it unless it did.
posted by JJ at 12:34 PM on November 15, 2011
Debo-270
Actually I once read that most pedophiles do not feel they are doing anything wrong or hurting children. They know they can get in trouble but in their sick minds they feel love for children and don't see themselves as harming them. To them they are intensely loving them, in a way others can't understand. They are drawn to children, typically want to work with them, be around them and even try to mentor them. Of course it is sick to most adults but I think history shows it is very difficult for true pedophiles to stop. By nature it is an offense typically repeated throughout a pedophiles life. It's not surprising Sandusky is in personal denial and feels butt fucking a 10 year old in the shower is just horseplay on the same order of snapping a towel.
This perv couldn't stop if he wanted to and as a homophobic macho football coach is probably more embarrassed by the fact that he was caught with boys then the fact they were children.
posted by Atheist at 01:01 PM on November 15, 2011
I only caught bits and pieces of Costas..
And you didn't notice that Sandusky was on the phone?
Costas is a true professional but he knew that he was talking to a sad and sick individual which would make anyone with common decency squeamish.
posted by BornIcon at 01:07 PM on November 15, 2011
I only caught bits and pieces of Costas..
If only that were true.
posted by yerfatma at 01:49 PM on November 15, 2011
At least there's a place to send Sandusky where he won't be far from home. Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution, Rockview, is only about 6 miles up the road from State College. It's a medium security facility for male prisoners. Sounds like just the place for Sandusky, and his friends won't have to drive very far to bring him his soap-on-a-rope.
posted by Howard_T at 01:56 PM on November 15, 2011
Didn't see the interview, have read a few reports.
It seems that those who are accused of these kind of acts really don't see their own actions as wrong or harmful. Hard to believe that Sandusky would be speaking out prior to his court hearings or that his attorney would allow him to do so.
Probably some kind of maneuver toward juror nullification.
posted by quizman at 02:06 PM on November 15, 2011
Haven't seen the interview either, just read some excerpts and heard Costas on the DP Show this morning. I'm thinking calculated move on the part of the attorney, but rather than a jury issue, maybe this helps establish a psuedo-"insanity" defense. I may be off-base regarding whether Sandusky could receive lighter punishment based upon "limited faculties" even if argued, but that was my gut reaction.
posted by littleLebowski at 02:31 PM on November 15, 2011
heard Costas on the DP Show this morning
Well that is unfortunate.
posted by yerfatma at 02:55 PM on November 15, 2011
I only caught bits and pieces of Costas..
If only that were true.
heard Costas on the DP Show this morning
Well that is unfortunate.
Hey fatty, correct me if I'm wrong but are you and Costas on the outs?
posted by BornIcon at 03:43 PM on November 15, 2011
I was stunned that he gave an interview. If ever there was a time to lay low and make no noise for a few decades for Sandusky, now is that time.
posted by Joey Michaels at 03:49 PM on November 15, 2011
are you and Costas on the outs?
Used to love him, but I had to kill him. He was once a cool commentator, now he's a walking Ken Burns documentary, incapable of commenting on anything without getting sepia-toned and referencing Abner Doubleday.
posted by yerfatma at 05:14 PM on November 15, 2011
So, when he's convicted and gang raped in the jail shower will he still consider it just "horseplay"?
posted by MGDADDYO at 05:33 PM on November 15, 2011
It seems pretty clear that Sandusky is guilty of wrong doing. What is disturbing is that the worm who came upon bad behavior did not put an immediate stop to it and gets to keep his job, while innocent people get fired. When one sees sexual depravity on children taking place one acts. I should know. I was stuck with that job twice. Young people deserve much better, and dismissal of uninvolved people will not make it so.
posted by EEEEE at 06:25 PM on November 15, 2011
Decent commentary from Daily Beast reader who has experience working with incarcerated pedophiles.
tl;dr - Sandusky exhibits classic pedophile behavior in the Costas interview.
posted by Joey Michaels at 07:00 PM on November 15, 2011
He was once a cool commentator, now he's a walking Ken Burns documentary, incapable of commenting on anything without getting sepia-toned and referencing Abner Doubleday.
You have a point but what's so wrong with referencing Abner Doubleday? I mean the man did invent baseball for Pete's sake.
/I kid
posted by BornIcon at 08:02 AM on November 16, 2011
I heard excerpts of the interview. When asked if he was sexually attracted to children, Sandusky took around 16 seconds to get to the word "no." And before it he said "sexually attracted?" as if there are other ways he's attracted to them.
Ask a normal person that question and the first word out of their mouth is a vociferous "no!" I thought that interview was pretty damning, despite his denials.
Just admitting he showers with boys could make him guilty of indecent exposure.
I heard this morning that Penn State is exempt from state open-records laws, a loophole sought in 2007 by Graham Spanier, the president who resigned over this scandal.
What the hell is wrong with that place?
posted by rcade at 08:12 AM on November 16, 2011
It seems pretty clear that Sandusky is guilty of wrong doing. What is disturbing is that the worm who came upon bad behavior did not put an immediate stop to it and gets to keep his job, while innocent people get fired.
Two things:
1) McQueary has said in a recent email that he DID put an immediate stop to it when he came across Sandusky and the victim in 2002. So far, of all the people involved in this horrible story, McQueary is the only one that shouldn't be labeled a "worm", and I really don't understand why there is so much hatred directed at him.
2) The people who got fired were not "innocent".
posted by grum@work at 08:24 AM on November 16, 2011
Here is the real scary part. The defense says they have the boy and he will testify that nothing happened. If that is true, The the only eye-witness(mcqueary ) testimony means nothing. From that point everyone else who is coming forward becomes a case of "he said she said", and is heresay. If Sandusky gets to the "shower victim" and pays him off/buys him out, Jerry may walk a free man. It is scary, but with the right lawyer, possible. O.J cut someones head off and walked.
posted by Debo270 at 08:26 AM on November 16, 2011
McQueary has said in a recent email that he DID put an immediate stop to it when he came across Sandusky and the victim in 2002. ... I really don't understand why there is so much hatred directed at him.
The indictment says that no one contacted police. No one at Penn State knows the identity of the child, and McQueary's decision to tell only Paterno, Schultz and Curley is a big reason why. If he called an actual cop, then there would have been an investigation in 2002 -- or we'd be blaming that cop for a cover up. McQueary would be off the hook.
If McQueary intervened to stop the abuse as it was happening, he should have said that immediately and it might have caused people to view his actions differently. But we'll have to see whether this email is consistent with the testimony he gave under oath. I have a hunch that when he says he told police, he means he told Schultz.
posted by rcade at 08:57 AM on November 16, 2011
The defense says they have the boy and he will testify that nothing happened. If that is true, The the only eye-witness(mcqueary ) testimony means nothing.
The defense will still have to prove it's the boy McQueary saw in the shower, rather than one of the other boys Sandusky was showering with. The boy also would have to testify about why he was showering with Sandusky in the locker rooms at Penn State at night when no one else was present, which even without what McQueary saw would be regarded by most people as suspicious as hell.
But the prospect of an accused person being found innocent is not scary. That's how the system is supposed to work. If the state can't prove these heinous charges against Sandusky beyond a reasonable doubt, he should walk.
posted by rcade at 09:01 AM on November 16, 2011
Jerry Sandusky's Lawyer, Impregnated Teenage Girl
posted by BornIcon at 09:02 AM on November 16, 2011
But the prospect of an accused person being found innocent is not scary
It is when they are guilty as hell. I understand how the legal system works, just dont always agree with it, right Casey Anthony.
posted by Debo270 at 09:12 AM on November 16, 2011
NBC didn't air the entire Sandusky interview. When asked if he fits the classic MO of a pedophile, here's what he said:
Well -- you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would -- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and -- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.Emphasis mine.
posted by rcade at 09:29 AM on November 16, 2011
Having taken the job of representing Sandusky in a trial surely to be followed around the nation, Amendola has also opened his own past to public examination.
Why? Why should the lawyer come under scrutiny? If he was just some public defender assigned by the government, would the media be allowed to search into his life history?
posted by grum@work at 10:36 AM on November 16, 2011
It is when they are guilty as hell. I understand how the legal system works, just dont always agree with it, right Casey Anthony.
I'd rather have 10 Casey Anthony's walk free than have even one more David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin be falsely convicted. When their trials were happening, people were pretty sure they were "guilty as hell".
posted by grum@work at 10:41 AM on November 16, 2011
I don't think any rationalization is needed to justify scrutinizing Sandusky's lawyer. He's an officer of the court.
posted by rcade at 11:11 AM on November 16, 2011
He's an officer of the court.
Are they also digging into the background of all the legal assistants, bailiffs, assistant D.A., stenographers, and security personnel involved in the case?
I understand investigating the history of the judge (or even jurors) as they directly influence the outcome of the court case. Even the prosecutor (since he is the one going forward with the case) could be scrutinized.
But I'm not sure what is to be gained by finding out that the defense attorney might have a spotty personal history? If you want to investigate his professional history (in terms of competency), that makes sense.
My problem with this is that it might scare away good lawyers from taking high-profile cases if they feel like they don't want to go under that scrutiny.
posted by grum@work at 11:42 AM on November 16, 2011
I get what you're saying and agree in principle; I think in this case reporters are trying to find One Honest Man among the slime involved. There's yet to be an official figure involved without stink on them.
posted by yerfatma at 11:45 AM on November 16, 2011
There's yet to be an official figure involved without stink on them.
Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas is officially offended.
posted by BornIcon at 11:49 AM on November 16, 2011
Did he say anything?
posted by yerfatma at 12:55 PM on November 16, 2011
It was a tongue in cheek comment fatty.
posted by BornIcon at 01:19 PM on November 16, 2011
I think people's personal lives are important only to the extent they could impact the case. The judge in this case potentially had a conflict of interest, which is important to this case. I see no relevance to the case in the fact that the defense attorney's wife was pregnant at 17.
Did he say anything?
Never.
posted by bperk at 01:27 PM on November 16, 2011
Are they also digging into the background of all the legal assistants, bailiffs, assistant D.A., stenographers, and security personnel involved in the case?
By officers of the court I meant the judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Amendola got the girl pregnant after serving as her attorney on an emancipation petition against her parents when she was 16 and he was 49. She became pregnant around the same time. Even if it was legal, there's the question of legal ethics -- did the Pennsylvania state bar ever investigate this?
Keep in mind that Amendola has let his client talk to the media and potentially relinquish his right against self-incrimination. Other defense attorneys are incredulous about this action. His background in the law ought to be fully considered.
posted by rcade at 02:59 PM on November 16, 2011
Amendola got the girl pregnant after serving as her attorney on an emancipation petition against her parents when she was 16 and he was 49. She became pregnant around the same time. Even if it was legal, there's the question of legal ethics -- did the Pennsylvania state bar ever investigate this?
No one knows if this is even true. The girl (now former wife) denied generally the truth of the allegation. The person providing the facts is her mother that she was trying to be emancipated from. If the mother had evidence of an ethics violation, then she should have reported it to the bar. I don't know what purpose bringing it up now serves, except to discourage attorneys from representing really bad people.
It is absolutely legitimate to question whether Amendola did Sandusky a disservice by endorsing the interview (he certainly couldn't prohibit it, just advise against it). I just assumed that the attorney advised him against it, but Sandusky insisted on doing it anyway. We'd never know how those conversations went since they are privileged.
posted by bperk at 03:39 PM on November 16, 2011
No one knows if this is even true.
The emancipation petition is filed in Centre County Courthouse and was cited by The Daily, so it's more than just her mother's allegation. His name is on those documents as her attorney.
posted by rcade at 03:46 PM on November 16, 2011
It was a tongue in cheek comment fatty.
I know, so was mine. Thomas is famous for not saying anything.
posted by yerfatma at 04:08 PM on November 16, 2011
The emancipation petition is filed in Centre County Courthouse and was cited by The Daily, so it's more than just her mother's allegation. His name is on those documents as her attorney.
So, he was her attorney and they married and had children. That doesn't mean that he did anything unethical. Presumably that is the premise here -- that he is a shady attorney or something. I am not seeing how this is anything but a smear to discourage attorneys from representing clients like Sandusky. Even if every single thing the mother said is true (which the daughter denies), what is the poiint of publishing this information?
posted by bperk at 05:41 PM on November 16, 2011
^ Lawyer ? ^
posted by NEPABob at 05:45 PM on November 16, 2011
That doesn't mean that he did anything unethical.
I think most people would regard it as astonishingly unethical for a 49-year-old attorney to provide legal representation to emancipate a minor from her parents and then knock that kid up.
But if you want to invent innocent reasons for Amendola to go with the hypothetical child-rape settlement you posited to exonerate Paterno, be my guest. Maybe Amendola was walking the child to her school bus when he tripped into her vagina.
posted by rcade at 06:39 PM on November 16, 2011
New judge assigned in the Sandusky case.
posted by beaverboard at 06:41 PM on November 16, 2011
A hand-written statement McQueary gave police during the grand jury investigation does not say he stopped the rape or notified police, according to the Patriot-News.
posted by rcade at 06:52 PM on November 16, 2011
Penn State interim coach Tom Bradley testified to the grand jury and was McQueary's roommate briefly in around 2006-07.
posted by rcade at 06:59 PM on November 16, 2011
I think most people would regard it as astonishingly unethical for a 49-year-old attorney to provide legal representation to emancipate a minor from her parents and then knock that kid up.
Who cares what "most people" think? Did the PA Bar think it was unethical? Those are the rules that he has to follow. "Most people" probably think it is wrong to represent a pedophile at all.
I don't need to defend Amendola. I think it is poor form to investigate an attorney's private life just because he has a famous client. I have yet to hear any reason why it is remotely relevant to this case.
But if you want to invent innocent reasons for Amendola to go with the hypothetical child-rape settlement you posited to exonerate Paterno, be my guest. Maybe Amendola was walking the child to her school bus when he tripped into her vagina.
You have shown again that facts have no place in this situation for you. Please reread the last thread. The child-rape settlement was not my theory, so let it go already. My role was to point out that settlements like that do happen (see Michael Jackson).
posted by bperk at 08:30 PM on November 16, 2011
You have shown again that facts have no place in this situation for you.
You need to insult me with more precision. I'm not aware of any facts about this scandal that I've ignored.
Did the PA Bar think it was unethical?
We don't know whether the Pennsylvania Bar ever found out Amendola was bedding the minor he emancipated.
The child-rape settlement was not my theory, so let it go already.
My comment related to a theory you regarded as "certainly possible," in spite of the fact that it's impossible in this situation. The grand jury would have found a settlement. Penn State would have revealed it. The child's identity remains unknown.
You're not going to hear a reason from me why scrutinizing Amendola is relevant because I don't think a reason is necessary. He is an officer of the court. His motives and background deserve as much sunlight as the judge who was just replaced for being involved in Second Mile.
If Amendola had done something laudable in his past, no one would object to the press mentioning it. But because he's done something contemptible, we're all supposed to clutch our pearls? Count me out. I'm glad the media has descended on State College like a swarm of locusts.
posted by rcade at 09:35 PM on November 16, 2011
why it is remotely relevant to this case
I know nothing of the legalities as they relate to the Penn State case, but it's certainly relevant that a child molester has selected representation by someone with a documented history of also manipulating minors. To the layman the whole arrangement wouldn't appear to benefit either in front of the courts or a jury.
posted by cixelsyd at 10:12 PM on November 16, 2011
If Amendola had done something laudable in his past, no one would object to the press mentioning it.
Except, of course, they wouldn't mention it. That's not how the press works.
In high-profile cases like this, the defending attorney is always made out to be soulless evil people who are helping equally evil people.
Try to name one defence attorney in a major criminal case in the past 25 years that was ever presented in a positive light before the trial began
You're not going to hear a reason from me why scrutinizing Amendola is relevant because I don't think a reason is necessary.
Well, you can't argue with that sort of (tautological) reasoning.
I know nothing of the legalities as they relate to the Penn State case, but it's certainly relevant that a child molester has selected representation by someone with a documented history of also manipulating minors. To the layman the whole arrangement wouldn't appear to benefit either in front of the courts or a jury.
The history of the defence lawyer would NEVER be presented to the jury. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the case, and doing so would be considered prejudicial.
It would be like telling the jury "The defendant's lawyer is well known for defending members of the local criminal syndicate." during a racketeering trial.
So if the personal history of the lawyer defending his client has absolutely no bearing in the court, why the hell should it matter outside the courtroom?
Note: I do agree that the professional history of the lawyer is of interest to the public. If a defendant is assigned a lawyer who has no previous expertise in that kind of case, or is known to have lost every case he/she has tried, or has previously been cited by the bar for incompetence, then it becomes an important piece of information (as the defendant may not be getting a proper defence).
Another note: Sandusky's lawyer creeps me out. There, I said it.
posted by grum@work at 01:21 AM on November 17, 2011
Try to name one defence attorney in a major criminal case in the past 25 years that was ever presented in a positive light before the trial began
F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, Johnnie Cochran and Randy Schaffer (Thin Blue Line) all have received positive press during their careers as defense attorneys.
Here's a story from the Allentown, Pa., paper about Amendola with plenty of positive details from lawyers who know his work. It also confirms from a divorce filing that his wife was 17 when she had their first child.
posted by rcade at 07:14 AM on November 17, 2011
Jason Whitlock thinks McQueary's actions are typical because people "are most cowardly when at work. For good reason."
posted by rcade at 08:25 AM on November 17, 2011
Jane Leavy also writes a sympathetic take on McQueary.
I can understand McQueary initially believing that telling Paterno was sufficient. But as the weeks passed, it should have been clear to him that Sandusky was not being criminally investigated and he had to call the police himself.
posted by rcade at 08:38 AM on November 17, 2011
I stand corrected, but I'm not sure that O.J. Simpson's "Best Defense Money Can Buy" team was treated in a positive light before the trial.
posted by grum@work at 08:38 AM on November 17, 2011
I don't know what you're hoping for. You make it sound like they're universally despised by the press and public, but star defense attorneys will get praise in news coverage because of their past accomplishments.
The next time Casey Anthony's attorney Jose Baez takes a high-profile case, he'll get props for the job he did regardless of how much the public thought she was guilty. We'll be hearing a lot of stuff like this: "Jose Baez was notorious during the Casey Anthony trial for two things: fiercely protecting his client and saying very little to the media."
I like defense attorneys, particularly when they provide a vigorous defense to someone the entire world thinks is guilty. The system fails when they don't.
posted by rcade at 09:06 AM on November 17, 2011
McQueary reportedly participated in a charity golf tournament for Second Mile organized by Sandusky in 2003.
posted by rcade at 10:09 AM on November 17, 2011
He was once a cool commentator, now he's a walking Ken Burns documentary, incapable of commenting on anything without getting sepia-toned and referencing Abner Doubleday.
You have a point but what's so wrong with referencing Abner Doubleday? I mean the man did invent baseball for Pete's sake.
I didn't realize Doubleday knew Rose
posted by Folkways at 02:14 PM on November 18, 2011
Sandusky's lawyer must be the 1%. The 1% at the bottom of his law school class, that is.