What if Sandusky is innocent?

[Anonymous]

Let's just contemplate for a minute that maybe, just maybe, Sandusky is innocent. He's made some bad judgement calls, that's a given and is something he's readily admitted to already. But what if this turns out to be a case of an accusation that's just spun out of control? They haven't found the boy who was supposedly raped yet, have they? What if McQuery told a big fat lie, hoping to step into Sandusky's shoes one day? Everything at this point is really heresy, there's no concrete evidence. Believe me, I'm as disgusted and appalled at the accusations as the rest of you are, but I can't help but wonder if there's not an inkling of a chance of innocence here. If he didn't think he was innocent, why would Sandusky be putting himself out there with his NBC interview?

[Anonymous]

My hunch is he's a sociopath who convinced his defense attorney that he's innocent. What about the janitor? And the NYT is reporting that more victims have come forward. Did you hear the interview? He sounds like a man with a very low IQ. I really wonder if he doesn't have brain damage from his years of playing football.

[Anonymous]

His attorney knocked up a 17 year old girl when he was 49. She was his client. I'm not sure his judgment should be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, but the janitor is mentally incapacitated, so he's not able to testify, again it's heresy based upon what other janitors were told. Other victims - perhaps people are lining up hoping to cash in on the eventual Penn State settlement? You know that's going to be some serious big bucks, and there are people out there willing to tell lies for an opportunity to get a payout, sad but true. I did hear the interview, but that doesn't seem to sway the case one way or other, me thinks...

[Anonymous]

It's heresy? Really?

[Anonymous]

STFU. Joe Pa, is that you? Ten victims have already came forward. TEN. I heard him lie through the interview. He hesistated and stammered through each question. When you are telling the truth you don't have to think twice about your answer.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't really fit. The grand jury heard from several of the victims themselves, who described themselves what Sandusky did. In 2002 Sandusky was already retired, so McQueary had no reason to think he would step into his shoes.

So if Sandusky is innocent, that means that several boys independently lied about how he fondled them and McQueary lied for no reason at all. All of this to bring down a retired coach who runs a successful program for at risk kids.

It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Why would he go on TV? Because he's facing life in prison and the only thing can do is try to raise some reasonable doubt without having to take the stand and testify under oath and be subject to cross examination.

[Anonymous]

I would be really surprised if he's innocent. McQueary had no reason to lie about what he saw a beloved mentor doing. Supposedly at least 9 victims have come forward, and if Sandusky hadn't been guilty back then, his football coaching career would have continued elsewhere. (and McQueary's would likely have advanced more slowly than it did.) For me, all signs point to this all being true. Wish they didn't - I'd love to think that nobody had been abused and nobody was guilty of such horrible acts - but my gut says it's all true and we haven't heard the end of it. I just hope the rumors about trafficking in the victims don't pan out. That makes me even sicker.

[Anonymous]

We'll see. He comes off as a creepy P.O.S. and there are a lot of victims coming forward.

[Anonymous]

Sworn testimony of 8 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.

[Anonymous]

I think perhaps the OP meant "hearsay" instead of "heresy." Though some defenders seem to consider the whole thing heretical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We'll see. He comes off as a creepy P.O.S. and there are a lot of victims coming forward.

First, I think OP is just trying to fan the flames. I think the story has enough fire as it is.
But are there other victims coming forward? I thought they'd be coming out of the woodwork but I haven't heard about them.

[Anonymous]

10:02 Right it's hearsay in court but for us, the public, it is very compelling. Nothing I've heard points to this man's innocence.

The strangest thing to me though is that two witnesses who came upon monstrous acts did nothing, McQueary and the janitor. This is a most unusual response.

[Anonymous]

I don't think OP's trying to fan the flames. That's what he said in an interview last evening on national television!

[Anonymous]

People shouldn't use legal terms when they don't understand what the terms mean. It's also silly when those people add requirements to other legal terms that no lawyer has ever heard of. I know, I know, we can't all be lawyers. But OP's post is so ignorant that I find it offensive and inflammatory. But that's just me.