Sandusky interview

[Anonymous]

What is everyone's take? Is he in complete denial? Is he a pathological liar? Is the denial just an attempt to cast enough doubt about the allegations in the public's eye? Is it at all possible that he is the victim of some massive conspiracy and that the allegations are false? What do you all think?

[Anonymous]

It's not a massive conspiracy against him.

He's PART of the conspiracy.

I wonder how many kids in foster care are being abused? How many agencies are part of a sex trafficking ring? How many hig-powered sickos are abusing children?

[Anonymous]

I am open minded enough to sit on such a jury. I do think it is possible that he is not guilty. Have to hear the case, evidence, motivations of all involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am open minded enough to sit on such a jury. I do think it is possible that he is not guilty. Have to hear the case, evidence, motivations of all involved.

seriously?

I'm glad you're not my mother or father.

[Anonymous]

I think given the coverage of the grand jury presentment and the nature of the alleged crimes, they're going to have a hell of a time finding 12 people like 9:21. Unless they move the trial to Belgium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am open minded enough to sit on such a jury. I do think it is possible that he is not guilty. Have to hear the case, evidence, motivations of all involved.

seriously?

I'm glad you're not my mother or father.

Look - I think he's guilty as h*** but I can see why someone would feel as PP does - its what our justice system is based on.

[Anonymous]

B/c no one did the right thing, bring the kid to the cops and admin a rape kit. There is no evidence. This will turn into a he said, he said thing. As has been show by the PSU reaction, a jury in State College will most likely let him off. Oh, let's not forget the 1998 stuff. Police were involved then and nothing happened.

[Anonymous]

OP here: Didn't see that there was already another thread on the interview.

This is one of those news stories that I just can't get out of my head.

I cannot fathom what he did and what people knew about it and continued to let happen. But, there is just a teeny tiny piece of me that wonders what if he isn't really guilty. But maybe that was the purpose of the interview, just to begin to cast the smallest shadow of doubt in people's minds.

Regardless, I think there is much much much more information still to come out. I saw on NBC the email that McQuery sent to friends that also implied that he did more than what has been reported and that more information will come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am open minded enough to sit on such a jury. I do think it is possible that he is not guilty. Have to hear the case, evidence, motivations of all involved.

seriously?

I'm glad you're not my mother or father.

So, PP, you're comfortable with throwing him directly in prison after reading a 23-page grand jury presentment, without allowing him the opportunity to present a defense? Quite the law and order advocate, huh?

[Anonymous]

Maybe they'll move the trial - perhaps to the City of Philadelphia. Many people there love the Eagles and Temple Football.

[Anonymous]

Listening to the interview left me with an even stronger impression of his guilt. I got the impression he is arrogant enough to think that if he says it's not true, people will believe him. That he is cunning enough to squirm out of this mess. Creepy.

[Anonymous]

I agree with pp. After the interview, I have no question that he is guilty.

[Anonymous]

How did or does he explain what the grad assistant coach saw? Is he suggesting there is an innocent explanation for what appeared to be anal rape? How could that possibly have been misinterpreted? I didn't watch the interview, obviously, and I am curious about how he might explain that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:B/c no one did the right thing, bring the kid to the cops and admin a rape kit. There is no evidence. This will turn into a he said, he said thing. As has been show by the PSU reaction, a jury in State College will most likely let him off. Oh, let's not forget the 1998 stuff. Police were involved then and nothing happened.

Please stop saying "there's no evidence." Maybe there's no physical evidence. Sworn testimony of the victims and corroborating testimony is the evidence. Most cases don't have the DNA-level proof that you seem to be seeking. By legal standards, the evidence needs to be "clear and convincing" to the jury. The grand jury determined there was enough evidence to go forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did or does he explain what the grad assistant coach saw? Is he suggesting there is an innocent explanation for what appeared to be anal rape? How could that possibly have been misinterpreted? I didn't watch the interview, obviously, and I am curious about how he might explain that one.

He said he may have been horsing around with the alleged victim, snapping towels. Costas asked what motive McQueary would have for making it up and he answered, you'll have to ask him that.