Saturday, December 3, 2011

Another Jerry Sandusky Interview

Who in the hell is Jerry Sandusky's lawyer? I need to know so that I can make sure that, should the need ever arise (and I can't for the life of me imagine a scenario in which it would) and I need a lawyer, I can make damn sure that I don't hire him. Good Lord. Is his lawyer authorizing these interviews that Sandusky is giving to the press? Oh. Wait. Did I not mention that Sandusky gave another interview, this time on camera? And did I mention that (to no real surprise) that it comes off as a complete disaster if he is still going to try to maintain his innocence (which he seems to be doing, albeit poorly)? I left those out? My bad. Here's the interview Sandusky did with a reporter who appears to be from the New York Times (The actual interview part is only about 2:45 in length. Also, try to not be annoyed when the Good Morning America guy pronounces it as 'lenth'.):


"Those allegations are false. I didn't do those things....I don't know." Right, Jerry. It's all just craaaaaaaaazy that you're being charged with at least forty counts of child touching in one form or another. "I don't know." Yeah, that's really not the best defense and it certainly is probably the worst explanation ever.


In regard to what Joe Paterno said to him after Paterno learned of the allegations against Sandusky: "I don't know that he didn't know. I know that he didn't never said anything to me." I'm going to overlook the "didn't never" debacle simply because this is just so full of crap that grammatical correctness should probably be the least of Sandusky's worries after this interview aired. Oh, and way to throw Paterno under the bus. I'm not saying that Paterno doesn't deserve to be under the bus (as he most likely does and I'd really like to be driving said bus), but way to go.


When asked about his reaction to being confronted with the time that Mike McQueary (allegedly) saw him raping a little boy in the Penn State showers: "Yeah...uh...I told him that it didn't happen. And uh, you know, in my mind, there wasn't inappropriate behavior." Oh. My. God. So, he's just one of those guys who thinks that the man-boy love is perfectly all right, isn't he? What do those sickos call themselves? NAMBLA? Given that answer (and that he was smiling about it and appeared to be adjusting his shoes when he was responding), I'm leaning in that direction. So, in his mind, raping a little boy isn't inappropriate at all. Ok, then. (By the way, it SO is!) Wow. This guy is weird. Way to go, Penn State, for letting him continue to roam your campus and bring young boys there for freaking years! The whole campus should just be burned the to ground and rebuilt or something. This whole thing makes me sick.


When asked about his bizarre response to Bob Costas when Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he said: "I was sitting there saying just 'What in the world is this question?'" Yeah, it's a head scratcher all right. You're charged with over forty counts of child touching and someone asks you if you're sexually attracted to young boys. Completely out of the blue! Who would have seen that coming?!


And trying to explain that question is where he dooms himself. He actually says, "Am I gonna be...If I say "No, I'm not attracted to boys" that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people. Boys...girls..." And then he stops talking because off camera, someone is speaking loudly to him. The voice over on the video suggests it might be his dumbass lawyer who was apparently cool with him doing this sort of interview in the first place.


Whatever. This is just irritating me to the point where my commentary is going to end here. This guy obviously has a jackass for an attorney and I'm actually glad about that. I hate it when these sorts of scumbags have some slick lawyer who can get them off on some sort of technicality even though they're obviously guilty as hell. Sandusky is guilty as hell and if all goes well, he'll be spending the rest of his life in prison (where one can only hope that he'll get a taste of some of his own behavior that he didn't think was inappropriate). These interviews are just too damning for him to get off, especially when he's being represented by a lawyer who not only lets him do these sorts of things, but hangs out and watches as they go down. I hope his trial is televised because with his idiot lawyer at the helm, Sandusky will probably take the stand. THAT is something that I'd like to see, as he will get torn to shreds by the prosecutors. Bring it on.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Okay, so I don't have kids & I don't even like them, but Jerry Sandusky is really getting on my last nerve now.

So I'm posting a link to Kenneth Lannings "Child Molesters-Behavioral Analysis." It’s free and done in cooperation with the US Justice Dept.
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Lanning is a Former Federal Bureau of Investigation (30 years) Special Agent; Behavioral Science Unit and National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC). Expert in victimization of children. Founding member of the Board of Directors of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC). (Like one of those guys on Criminal Minds.)

Every parent, teacher, social worker, law enforcement officer, etc.--
anyone, in fact, who comes even remotely into contact with children--should read Kenneth Lanning's "Child Molesters-Behavioral Analysis." Then you would see the truth of the horrifying statistic that in the United States 1-in-4 girls and 1-in-6-boys will be sexually molested before they're 16-years old; you'd understand how all of Sandusky's posturing about being an upstanding pillar of the community who did so much charitable work actually fits the profile of a child molester; and, most importantly, you'd understand the victims & the reasons they behave as they do (i.e. "comply" with the abuse & continue the relationship with the abuser).

My friends know I'm not in the least bit sentimental or emotional, but Lanning's "Child Molesters-Behavioral Analysis" is one of the most disturbing and heartbreaking books I've read in my life.

If you believe in this, pls pass it on to everyone you know.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Mare said...

Hey, Anonymous.

Thank you for your link. As someone who has been a social worker and has worked with sexually abused children for years, I can tell you that Lannings' analysis is completely accurate. It's absolutely as disturbing and as heartbreaking as you state that it is.

Thanks for reading.

~ Mary