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

Not A Very Funny Joke

Remember yesterday when I was the ONLY ONE to mention that Anthony Weiner was still lying when he gave his apologetic press conference where he admitted to sending schlong shots with his phone to some unsuspecting hot chick that followed him on Twitter of all things? And remember how I pointed out that his lie consisted of his saying that he sent a picture of his penis to the chick "as a joke"? Right, because that's so funny. Sending pictures of your wang to people you've never met is absolutely hilarious and totally understandable. Or it isn't. And that's why I was surprised that I was the ONLY ONE to catch that. (Then again, the media sucks, so why does it surprise me?)

But yesterday, the "it was a joke" excuse came up AGAIN in another very implausible situation.

Like at the Casey Anthony trial. You remember her. She's the chick who allegedly (Translation: she totally did) killed her adorable 2-year old daughter because she was too encumbered with all of the duties of parenting and would have rather partied with her friends than look after a child. She would appear (translation: she is) to be a horrible human being. Apparently, "joking" has factored into her defense.

According to CNN, testimony in the case yesterday revealed that someone had searched for things such as ""inhalation," "self-defense," "meningeal artery," "ruptured spleen," "alcohol" and "head injury", as well as ""how to make chloroform," "neck breaking" and "making weapons out of household products". Interesting. (By the way, that meningeal artery? Yeah, that's a big ol' blood vessel in the brain. I had to look that up, but NOT because I'm planning on killing any two-year olds. Oh, and in case you were wondering, apparently you CAN make chloroform at home. Who knew? Then again, who needs to know, other than someone planning on killing their 2-year old daughter so that they can have more free time to party? But I digress.)

It was a prosecution witness that testified that these searches were found on the family computer. So, when then defense attorney goes to question the guy, do you know what "asserts" during questioning? His assertion was "that the links do not tell jurors what was on the websites accessed, and that some could have been jokes or information on self-defense." Of course! They could have been...wait. What?

Jokes? Look, a fancy myself as a bit of a funny person. Sometimes

to much to those who know me. There are lots of things that you can make jokes about, but as for someone who tries to find something humorous in damn near everything, let me just tell you that the meningeal artery isn't great material! What kind of jokes go with a ruptured spleen as the punchline? Or the subject. It really isn't clear. What IS clear is that the defense is really stretching here. It could have been a joke? The standard is reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt, you moron.

I

guess that it would be hard to defend someone who was so obviously guilty, but would you have to be so obvious about it? It could have been a joke, right? All of that searching for how to make chloroform and head injuries? Nothing funnier than that! Good Lord, she is so obviously guilty. I hope she gets what is coming to her. And with a defense like that, I can't imagine that she wouldn't. Then again, this blog doesn't ever report on anything that makes sense, so I guess it wouldn't surprise me if she somehow got off. People are morons. I can't change that, but I can make fun of it.

Sphere: Related Content

Duck Billed Defense, Day Two

Yesterday was Day Two of the Duck Billed Defense of Hans Reiser, the platypus-ian computer programmer who is on trial for the death of his (yet-to-be-found) wife, Nina. If you were unaware that a human being could be compared to a platypus (let alone be compared to a platypus as a defense to murder charges), well, you wouldn't be alone. Then again, there have been a lot of things in this trial that I was unaware of. (That techno-geek S&M crowd of Silicon Valley, for one.)

When we last left the really, really f-ing weird closing arguments being given by the defense, William DuBois was clinging to a stuffed platypus and likening the egg-laying mammal (one of only 5 mammals that lay eggs) to his client, Hans Reiser. I suppose the analogy was supposed to be something like, "This is a weird duck. He is a weird duck. Weird ducks are innocent." It didn't really come across like that. It kind of came across as an old attorney holding a stuffed animal in court whilst making berating comments about his client in his unique and strategic attempt to show the innocence of his client.

When the defense's closing arguments continued on Thursday, the platypus theme was still present, although the stuffed animal had been replaced by an image of a platypus projected onto a screen in the courtroom. That followed with Mr. DuBois reminding the jury that "the platypus is Hans." (Not words I would want to hear my attorney say in my defense at my murder trial. But that's just me.) He said, "This is what they actually look like, but you get the idea." Um, actually, no I don't. This guy is that duck thing again why?

Then Mr. DuBois reminded the jury of why Hans was a platypus. (That seems like the most logical thing to start with, if you're asking me. Because if he doesn't explain it, there will be questions. ) DuBois smiled at the jury and said, "Did you know that the platypus is the only mammal that lays eggs? I was trying to think recently how a platypus could even evolve. It must have been a genetic mistake. That's why it reminded me of..." That's when Mr. DuBois's voice sort of trailed off and he glanced over at Hans. Ah, yes, the old "my client is a genetic mistake" angle. Then things start to get a little weird.

DuBois continued to explain to the jury why his client, the innocent, pseudo-egg laying mammal, would not have killed his wife with his children in the house. He explained that the children could have witnesses such a killing by being present, and if someone did not want to get caught, they wouldn't kill their spousal platypus with their platypi offspring (I swear, more than one platypus = platypi.) in the home. Or den. Or whatever they live in. He said, "Even for a platypus, that one's hard to believe." (I'd have to imagine that all platypi are, at this very moment, finding all of this "hard to believe". Either that or they have absolutely no clue whatsoever that there is a murder trial going on. One of the two.)

This was the basic line of reasoning that Mr. DuBois continued with throughout his closing arguments (which, by the way, he did not finish. Day Three of "The Platypus Is Innocent" will continue on Monday. They're taking Friday off. Shocker.) He explained repeatedly why "a platypus" acts the way it does. He was also a bit dismayed that twice during his arguments, the image of the platypus disappeared from the monitor for no apparent reason. Both times caused him to ask, "What happened to Hans?" Yes, he has started calling the platypus 'Hans'. I guess that's to continually remind the jury of his freakishly weird defense theme of 'egg laying, fur bearing mammals indigenous to Australia." (Yeah. It'd be hard to remember that all the time. Thanks for the refreshers there, Bill.)

And I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but there was a point when I'd have to say that Mr. DuBois got a little carried away with his platypus analogies. He got carried away to the point where he clearly didn't realize how wrong what he said must have sounded (and that's just to those in the court who knew what in the hell he was talking about. If you had just poked your head in the courtroom 30 seconds before this part, you'd have been really confused and probably horrified.).

It was when DuBois was stating that he thought that Hans was getting a raw deal by being charged with his missing wife's murder in the first place. That's when he said, "I just know this is one of the great screw-jobs of what happened to Hans Reiser. It's easy to screw a platypus." Yes, of course it is. Wait. What? (Did he just say it was "easy to screw a platypus?" WTF?!)

Even after THAT, he kept talking and he said, "I don't know how they stay away from predators. They must taste terrible." Now, maybe he didn't know he was speaking out loud and that other people could actually hear him. I don't know how else to explain THAT. It's the closing arguments in a murder trial and the defense attorney just told the jury that it's easy to screw a platypus and that they must taste terrible. Aside from not seeing the hidden legal precedence in those statements, they're just wrong on so, so many levels that I can't even go there. And I'd appreciate it if, in the future, if you didn't go there either, Mr. DuBois.

The prosecution will get to speak to the jury after the defense finishes it's platypus-ian closing statements. That should be interesting. Web-footed mammalian rebuttals. Stay tuned, won't ye?

Sphere: Related Content

Duck-Billed Defense

Well, here's a defense that you don't hear in court every day. Or any day, from what I can tell. I've never heard it before. But, then again, this involves Hans Reiser, the guy who is on trial for the murder of his wife (who has not been found, alive or dead) who claimed that the techno-geek S&M crowd in San Francisco could be the culprit. That is correct; technology geeks who like to have S&M sex. (I guess with each other, but I doubt that any techno-geek would be all that discriminate about who he has sex with, really.) I didn't know that one could be topped, but it might have been.

The trial is finally at the closing arguments stage. The thing has been going on since at least November. There have been at least 60 witnesses. Hans himself was on the stand for eleven days. It would have been considerably shorter if his incessant rambling and his need to insert every miniscule detail possible into his testimony had been curtailed a bit. But it wasn't. Thus, five months later, here we are. And after five months, five months, that the defense has had to prepare for this moment, what do they come up with as their parting words to the jury before deliberations? That's right. He's a platypus.

A platypus is a freaky looking semi-aquatic little mammal that lives in Australia. It is also known as the duck billed platypus because it sports a duck-like bill (clever). Behold! A duck-billed platypus:

Now, just so we don't get too far off track with all of the legal analogies being made to Australian mammals, behold! Hans Reiser:

Yeah, I'm just not seeing it. But I'm not his attorney, William DuBois is. And he told the jurors, "Hans' conduct can be interpreted as being guilty. It can also be interpreted as innocence, and a product of his own platypus-ian personality, as we will see. He is odd in every way." Dude, he's not the only odd one there. May I just ask what in the hell is a "platypus-ian personality"? Are you saying he is one of only five mammals that lay eggs? Are you saying that he is so revered in Australia that he is featured on the Australian 20 cent coin? What else?

"He is odd in every way. Odd in the way he carries himself. Odd in the way he acts. Odd in the way he speaks." Yes, this is all very, very odd. He got that right. DuBois continued with, "Why did he act the way he acts? He does not understand social cues. He shows almost no emotion is because he has no emotion." And that makes him like a platypus? Well, yes, according to Mr. DuBois who continued along the same odd mammalian line with, "He is the duck-billed platypus of criminal defendants, the duck-billed platypus amongst some of his peers, the duck-billed platypus amongst normal people. Yet he must get the same consideration under the law." The same consideration as what? People who are not being compared to a platypus?! ("That Hans. He always was the duck-billed platypus of the group.") Oh, and as DuBois was telling the jurors this, he was HOLDING a stuffed PLATYPUS. Yes. I guess it was so the jury could see just how ridiculous it is to be comparing anything, other than another platypus, to a platypus! In fact, here:

Please note the drawing of the male sitting behind Mr. DuBois. I don't know who he is supposed to be, but I have the feeling that the expression drawn on his face would have to sum up his (and other's listening to the "web-footed, duck-billed, Australian mammal defense") feelings on the matter (which appear to be, "WTF? Did he say 'platypus'?")

Now, I question this defense mainly because, well, it's freaking odd. But also because Mr. DuBois and Hans have not exactly gotten along just swimmingly over the course of the trial. No, there was the time when Hans referred to himself as an "asshole" and Mr. DuBois seized that opportunity to make sure that he understood that Hans was saying he was an "asshole" at least five times. So that's just another reason to question this defense tactic (not that you really needed another reason after you first heard 'platypus'.)

Mr. DuBois continues his "defense" closing arguments by going over how Hans and Nina met in 1998 in Russia when he picked her out of European Connections, a mail-order bride catalog. (She was "5279 Nina". Catchy.) He then showed the picture of her that was included in the catalog and he mentioned that she also included that she wanted to "meet a good man." DuBois said, "She missed the mark there, with all due respect," he said to his client.

What he was getting at (in the oddest of all odd platypus-ish ways) was that Nina had ulterior motives by marrying Hans. He was suggesting that she wanted to marry him in order to obtain American citizenship and when she had her citizenship, she would want to leave him. He flat out said that there was no way she could love Hans. He told the jurors, "She had an ulterior motive to marry Hans. It couldn't have been out of love that she married Hans Reiser. I can't see anybody loving Hans Reiser. He has to be one of the least attractive people you can imagine, and she's a doll." This is HIS attorney who is defending him! (I figured I should point that out because it's really hard to tell, I know.)

"My client is an ugly and unlovable platypus who did not kill his wife." That's really not the kind of thing I want to hear my own attorney say in his closing arguments about me as a way of trying to get me acquitted of murder. No, I'd prefer something a little bit more, um, flattering? Positive? Nice? How about nice? Nicer would a huge improvement at this point. But that didn't happen. No, instead we got, "My client is such an easy person to dislike. He just comes across so lousy."

DuBois resumes his closing arguments on Thursday (perhaps by then, he will have come up with some sort of pouched marsupial to compare Hans to.). I hope he uses the time in between to do a little bit more thinking about this defense strategy that he's come up with. You know, the male platypus have these little spur-like things on their heels (it's like they're just built for bein' cowboys!). They're hollow and they are connected to these sacs in their legs that contain poison which is lethal when the platypus uses his toxic spur-claws against smaller rodents or small fish. So he has just compared his client, on trial for murder, to a weird-ass animal that has the hidden ability to kill other things when it wants to. What could possibly go wrong?

Sphere: Related Content