Where Are His Pants?

I ran across the cartoon below today.  While I'm a little tired of the whole "From Penn State to the State Pen" witticism, I thought that this cartoon was interesting only in the sense that the artist made it look like Sandusky isn't wearing any pants!  I can't imagine that this was on purpose, but come on!  Doesn't it look like he's pantless?!  You know it does. Behold! 
  

 

And again, I realize that it's not a misrepresentation of anything that went on, it's just weird. And kinda funny. That's all I've got.

Sphere: Related Content

Guilty As Charged

As I'm sure that you know by now, that pig Jerry Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 counts of child sexual abuse that he was charged with.  That seems about right.  I just have a few final thoughts on this. 

I've been thinking about Sandusky's wife and whether or not she knew what had been going on for all of these years.  Naturally, she claims that she didn't know anything was happening, let alone happening in her own basement for years and years.  While I would like to believe her (as it sickens me to think that she really knew and just let it happen to all of those boys for so long), I'm having a hard time believing that she was the only one around him who was clueless.  Everyone else seemed to know and everyone else seemed to inexplicably keep their mouths shut.  I don't know that she was any different. 

But let's just assume for the sake of assuming that she didn't know.  Can someone explain to me how she could sit there through all of the testimonies of all of those victims and listen to the vile and atrocious acts that her husband committed against them and after hearing all of that, repeatedly, how could she still take the stand and testify in his defense?  How?!  Because even if she didn't know about it before then, she certainly knew about it after all of that.  Why on earth wouldn't she just say, "You clearly did it.  You're a sick, sick pervert and there is no way in hell that I'm getting up there and saying nice things about you."  Why wouldn't she do that?  Why would she instead get up there and sing his praises?  Why would any of the people that testified for the defense still agree to get up there in defense of him?  Shouldn't they all have been barfing in disgust after hearing those heartbreaking testimonies?  There are so many things so wrong on every single side of this case that it is simply unbelievable how people act in the face of sexual abuse.  Absolutely stunning.  And another example of how we're doomed. 

 Last I had heard, Sandusky was on suicide watch.  Perfect.  I'd love to watch him commit suicide.  Show me to my seat.  What's that?  It doesn't mean that?  Huh.  Well, that's unfortunate.  I'd really enjoy it if it was.  Bummer.  I guess that means I just have to wait until sentencing where I continue to hold out hope that this will be the very first sentence of death by stoning handed down in the United States.  In the meantime, I will take small pleasure in knowing that Sandusky is about to realize that showering with inmates is going to be an awful lot different than showering with young, helpless little boys.  A lot different. 

Sphere: Related Content

This Is Why People Don't Come Forward

The Sandusky case has gone to the jury. I was looking for a different video when I stumbled upon this one. Holy crap. This woman is a danger to society. I appreciate wispy little Anderson Cooper sticking with his line of questioning and keeping just enough of an incredulous tone in his voice to get across that he thought she was nuts, while at the same time downplaying his disgust with her enough so that she would continue answering questions with her more than bizarre justified answers. This woman is exactly the sort of person who makes it terrifying for those who are sexually abused or assaulted to come forward and face their perpetrators. This woman is exactly the sort of person who allows these sort of horrible crimes to continue on and repeat themselves over and over because she is in too much denial to see the facts and to accept the truth. If you know this woman and you're ever sexually abused, don't expect her to help you. She will simply explain away all of the reasons why you're wrong and go about her business. Try not to throw anything at your monitor when you watch the video. If it doesn't play, try clicking here and watching it over at CNN.

Sphere: Related Content

Dos And Don'ts Of Defending A Pedophile

I have a few more thoughts about the ongoing trial of "alleged" child molester and child rapist, Jerry Sandusky.  Again, I realize that the defense has to come up with something, anything, in order to try and get this guy off (no pun intended).  But I just find their particular lines of defense so incredibly ridiculous.  Granted, it could be because I think the guy is obviously guilty (not to mention that I also think that people at Penn State obviously knew about his disgusting endeavors and covered it up in order to not damage their prized football program), but it could also be because it's just lame. 

One angle that defense attorney Joe Amendola is taking is to imply that the guys who are asserting that Jerry Sandusky sexually abused them when they were small children  are simply doing it for financial gain.  I kind of think that if that were the case, there would be a hell of a lot more than the nine or ten men who have come forward.  And by the way, should he be found guilty, those guys absolutely should sue Penn State and him for as much as they can possibly get.  I'm not one for frivolous lawsuit filing, but this is hardly frivolous.  If you're going around and systematically and methodically sexually abusing small boys and then threatening them and scaring the ever living crap out of them if they were to tell, you deserve to have every single penny you currently have dispersed amongst your victims.  And if you're the sort of college whose employees help cover up a pervert like this, that college, as well as those particular employees, deserves to have its coffers bled dry as well. 

The other angle that Mr. Amendola is taking is to ask these defense witnesses if they ever saw anything inappropriate take place.  Of course they didn't!  These things don't happen out in public!  It's like if you accuse someone of being a pervert and their reply is, "I'm not a pervert."  Well, that's like the pervert motto!  Of course that's what you're going to say! 

Mr. Amendola even put Mr. Sandusky's wife, Dottie, on the stand yesterday.  Now, I don't know if Mrs. Sandusky knew what was going on and just turned a blind eye to the whole thing or if she was really kept in the dark all of these years.  But considering that it would seem that he was caught on at least two different occasions by a couple of people at Penn State, I'm going to go ahead and assume that those weren't the only two times that someone caught on to his whole act and chose not to say anything.  She was asked by prosecutor Joe McGettigan why the men might lie in making the accusations that they have made.  According to Fox News, that question "...appeared to stump her" and she answered "I don't know what it would be for," she said, with a slight shake of her head."  Of course you don't know what it would be for!  Because there is not a reason to lie about this!  You think that people are really going to perjure themselves and say that they were raped when they were little boys in the hopes of a possible financial settlement?  I don't think that's going to happen. 


For some reason, the defense also chose to put on the stand a one psychologist, Elliott Atkins, "...who told jurors he believes Jerry Sandusky has a personality disorder that might explain letters addressed to one of his accusers".  You know, I'm pretty sure that anyone who did the things that Mr. Sandusky is accused of absolutely has some sort of personality disorder.  That's a given!  And I don't know that a grown man writing what essentially amount to love letters to a young boy needs to be classified with some sort of official diagnosis.  You know, the term "freaking weird" is definitely underutilized in the legal field these days.  "Freaking weird" pretty much covers it (and does so quite well). 
  

Finally, if you're the defense attorney in this case and you're asked by reporters if you're going to put your alleged scumbag client on the stand, what say you don't act like some hot shot director who has just been asked about his latest upcoming project and respond with an almost playful, "Stay tuned!"  And one more tip:  If you're said attorney for said alleged scumbag and you feel the need to make a comment about how you think the proceedings have been going, what say you don't say that it's been like a soap opera?  And then when you're asked which soap opera (Seriously, reporters?  How lame are you for asking such a lame ass question?), please don't say "All My Children" when we're talking about the sexual abuse of young boys.  Good Lord, why do I even have to mention that?!  WHY?!

Word seems to be right now that the defense lawyers are leaning toward putting Sandusky on the stand.  I cannot possibly imagine how that would go down other than being a complete disaster, but I think that I'd like to find out.  The previous interviews that he did with reporters were some of the most incriminating things that I've ever seen.  That is one train wreck that I will absolutely enjoy watching.  The only thing that will be better than that is when he's finally convicted.  Oh, but how I hope they allow cameras in the courtroom for the verdict.  I would really like to see his face when he finally gets what has been coming to him for far too long.  Allegedly.

Sphere: Related Content

THAT'S Your Defense?!

"Alleged" (Translation:  Damn near certain) pervert and child molester Jerry Sandusky has been on trial for the last week.  The prosecution rested after calling a string of young men with heartbreaking testimony about how Sandusky "allegedly" sexually abused them by a variety means, including those of oral and anal sex.  Yesterday, the defense got to take their swing at things and I'm having a hard time with their line of defense.  See if you feel the same way that I do about how they're going about defending his "allegedly" heinous actions. 

According to the fine folks at the Washington Post (one of the very few media outlets that I would love to work for), the defense called to the stand "...two former coaching colleagues who said that it was routine for adults and boys to shower together in large public locker rooms."  Uh-huh.  Before I continue, I'm just going to point out that the "allegations" indicate that Sandusky routinely sexually abused young boys.  Just because something is routine, doesn't make it OK!  If you're an adult and part of your "routine" is to shower with young boys (or young girls for that matter), I'm going to suggest you change your "routine".  Good Lord. 

The first to testify on Sandusky's behalf was a one Richard Anderson.  Mr. Anderson apparently had no problem sitting up there on the stand under oath where he "...vouched for the defendant’s “wonderful” reputation."  Yeah, his reputation hasn't been so "wonderful" since these "allegations" came out.  "Wonderful" isn't exactly a likely adjective when describing someone who has every indicator pointing at him being a vicious child molester and rapist.  That man has a lot of nerve standing up for this guy.  I'm not sure what his problem his, but he is not a good human being, I can tell you that right now. 

Mr. Anderson went on to say that he routinely saw Sandusky in the shower, naked, with young boys and that it happened all the time.  How is that a defense?!  Sure, Mr. Anderson said that he never saw anything inappropriate happen, but would anyone expect him to?!  It's not like Sandusky wanted an audience while he was doing the most unspeakable things you can think of to those young kids.  Verifying that he was often taking showers with young boys doesn't seem like the best way to go in my opinion!  I don't know about you, but I'd think that a better defense for this lowlife would be to not emphasize that he routinely showered completely naked with children.  But I guess that's just me because that is not what is currently happening. 

I guess the good thing about a defense as poorly thought out as the one that they seem to be going with is that it increases the already high (in my opinion) chance that this abhorrent individual and poor excuse for a human being is convicted.  If and when he is convicted, I'm going to go ahead and hold out hope that his punishment will include the first ever death by stoning in the United States.  A girl can dream, can't she?   

Sphere: Related Content

Just Put Him Back In Jail

Look, if you've been accused of heinously sexual crimes against children and you've somehow managed to avoid getting incarcerated (despite being arrested twice), could you do everyone involved a little favor and at least try to not to stand out on your porch and leer at school children who are playing outside? Jerry Sandusky, I'm talking to you.

That's right. According to the Huffington Post, there have been "complaints that the former Penn State assistant football coach was seen outside and watching children in a schoolyard from the back porch of his home, where he remains under house arrest while awaiting trial on child molestation charges." Oh, for cryin' out loud. Does he not think that people are going to notice that? Of course they are! And really, if he can't stay off of his porch because he's too damn tempted by the children outside playing, should he still be out on bail? Strangely enough, the prosecutors seem to think so.

Yes. The prosecutors. Apparently, the office of the state attorney general has "...argued in a court filing that Sandusky's bail conditions should be revised so that he is not allowed outside except to seek medical treatment." That's it?! Can't they argue that his bail should be revoked because he's a freaking weirdo who is sexually attracted to children? Besides, I don't think that he lives in some sort of teepee or other dwelling which doesn't have freaking windows. Are they somehow going to prevent him from looking out the windows at the children? I don't see how that would be any better from him leering at them on his porch.

I don't get this. This guy just cannot stay away from small children. He needs to be in a more confined area where the chances of him seeing a small child are pretty much non-existent. Hey, wouldn't a jail cell accomplish that goal? I believe it would. I believe it would.

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content