Sandusky was just interviewed by Costas on Rock 30 w/ Brian Williams

[Dove]

Bob Costas asked him point blank questions of the crudest kind as Sandusky. He denied everything. When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys came the best part. Sandusky delayed an answer and then asked the question back. Then said "He loves being with them..." but no, he's not sexually attracted to them. He says he really regrets the showering with boys.

He lawyered up with a guy who said he fully believes that Sandusky is innocent. The lawyer says that they know who the Victim 2 (shower rape victim) is even tho the Commonwealth does not..."Interesting isn't it? he asked Bob.

 

[Sean]

Lawyer impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49, nothin' but class with that guy.

I haven't seen the clip but will watch online later. From my twitter feed, I can tell I will be quite agitated.

 

[UCHuskies08]

Sounded guilty as

 

[mattp]

the way he repeated "am i sexually attracted to young boys?" a few times was pretty creepy. most liars i know repeat the question when asked about a lie point blank. i guess there's always the presumption of innocence, but he really didn't help his cause by having this interview. i wonder if this was a calculated move to taint any future jury pool.

 

[Section205]

I'm a bit surprised that his lawyer let him talk (this quickly at least). I'm no lawyer but the more I listened to that interview, I was saying to myself, this guy should shut the **** up.

Hey BL, was this a good strategy on their part?

 

[Stinger92860]

He sounded very creepy. What a strange interview. I think he is guilty as hell.

 

[upstater]

Regardless of Sandusky's actions in specific, the lawyer's advice needs to be questioned. Clearly, his client is in a state of mental debility, likely depression, and he may even be suicidal. Did you hear the guy's diction?

 

[Waquoit]

the way he repeated "am i sexually attracted to young boys?" a few times was pretty creepy. most liars i know repeat the question when asked about a lie point blank. i guess there's always the presumption of innocence, but he really didn't help his cause by having this interview. i wonder if this was a calculated move to taint any future jury pool.

You said taint. Heh, heh, heh heh heh!

 

[BHusky]

Not sure why they even had the interview. He said he did not do it and basically nothing else. Not sure how you can defend 2 eye witness accounts and 8 victims (and growing). I mean, I can see how McQuery might have mistaken seeing sodomy of a 10 year old with rough housing and snapping towels in the shower. Same difference....

The only interesting thing was the lawyer saying some of the 8 victims would be on the defenses side.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Sandusky's lawyer should be disbarred for letting him do this interview.

I don't know of many people who would pause and repeat the question of whether they are attracted to young boys. What a creepy interview.

If the reports of McQueary intervening and stopping the rape are true, I retract my statements about him to a degree. He still should've reported that to law enforcement officials.

I think we will hear a lot more in the coming months and maybe even years that will show the depth of this cover up as nothing short of enormous.

 

[HuskyNan]

"Creepy" seems to be the word best used to describe Sandusky.

Sandusky was "creepy" says ex-foundation kid

 

[buckley503]

You said taint. Heh, heh, heh heh heh!

Good Butthead impersonation.

 

[BHusky]

Sandusky's lawyer should be disbarred for letting him do this interview.

I don't know of many people who would pause and repeat the question of whether they are attracted to young boys. What a creepy interview.

If the reports of McQueary intervening and stopping the rape are true, I retract my statements about him to a degree. He still should've reported that to law enforcement officials.

I think we will hear a lot more in the coming months and maybe even years that will show the depth of this cover up as nothing short of enormous.

If McQuery did in fact stop the assault, he deserves a major apology by all the media who are and have been trashing him nationwide. He still could have done more, no argument there, but he has become a villain because he supposedly looked away and ran to his Father when he saw the assault. If he physically intervened, then it puts him in a very new light.

 

[geordi]

What do you call an older woman who is attracted to younger boys?

A Cougar!

What do you call an older man who is attracted to younger boys?

A Nittany Lion!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I don't think Sandusky has a lot of good legal strategies available right now, but I agree that this interview seems like a bad idea. Going for all out innocence seems kind of stupid at this point. He is going to need to convince a jury that a lot of people, who will all be telling about the same story, are lying. If I was Sandusky's lawyer, i would be talking plea in return for flipping on Joe Pa and the President for lying and perjuring themselves, and on any other pedophiles within Second Mile that Sandusky set up meetings for. Maybe he can get medium or minimum security prison instead of max where he may be going.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I didn't see the entire 30 Rock piece but I think I saw all of the Sandusky interview as re-aired on espn. Definitely doesn't seem like sound legal advice and possibly since the lawyer was with Costas in person it was an effort by the lawyer to gain personal fame.

He is the only major player in this to speak publicly, so by doing this quickly he somehow helps himself more than Paterno or McQueary have to date. I think he's guilty and possibly delusional, but that's conjecture. I think he didn't really do anything towards proving innocence other than getting his voice out there saying I am not guilty. I think it helps the entire situation somehow to have him out there as a real face to this and not some imagined super villain. But mostly what that interview does is folks can see via his interview how sexual predators fool those around them.

Regarding the interview itself I think confessing to the showers and the hands on the legs seems both an admission of guilt and delusional. There is no reason for a coach to shower with any athlete and it gets exponentially less appropriate as ages diverge. This is obvious. If he was showering with young girls for our societal norms that would clearly be grossly impermissible, how can he not see that this is only a tad bit different? Is he using the same defenses he successfully used in 1998 and 2002? Since it fooled some pretty smart people before its a learned behavior for him. He is likely a liar caught and is attempting to mitigate his punishment by admitting some guilt and remorse.

Then definitely the pause and roundabout answer regarding the question on finding young boys sexually attracted was indicative of some aberrant thinking and behavior. First you say NO strongly. Maybe if pushed you add something about being married and heterosexual. But to respond by talking about how much you love young people, going on and on, quite possibly was a window into how his psychosis works and how he convinces himself that his depraved behavior is a justifiably expression in his warped deviant mind.

Costas asked some direct and pointed questions, but I felt that the interview should have been conducted by either a prosecuting lawyer or a psychiatrist. I think a psychiatrist would have called him on the telling pauses and pushed him on his clearly warped actions or thoughts and ultimately worked towards a full confession.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm a bit surprised that his lawyer let him talk (this quickly at least). I'm no lawyer but the more I listened to that interview, I was saying to myself, this guy should shut the **** up.

Hey BL, was this a good strategy on their part?

As a legal strategy, no. Because the interview will be admissible, so anything you say in it that helps your case is self serving and anything you say in it that harms your case is used against you. I would assume that this was more of a PR strategy than a legal strategy. But I don't think it was that either. Best guess -- Sandusky doesn't view himself as a pedophile or a rapist and nothing his lawyer said changes that..

 

[UConn9604]

As a legal strategy, no. Because the interview will be admissible, so anything you say in it that helps your case is self serving and anything you say in it that harms your case is used against you. I would assume that this was more of a PR strategy than a legal strategy. But I don't think it was that either. Best guess -- Sandusky doesn't view himself as a pediophile or a rapist and nothing his lawyer said changes that..

Allowing Sandusky to conduct this interview was the dumbest sports-related legal decision of the year, by far. Gene DeFilippo's lawyer is now off the hook.

 

[HuskyNan]

The lawyer is everywhere today.

Today Show interview

Accusing the victims of coming forward for the lawsuit money. Nice.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I think they are trying to seize upon the anti-McQuery sentiment. They are basically calling him a liar or an idiot. He either made up what he claims he saw or severely misrepresented the real situation. I was stunned they let him do that interview.

As far as an apology for McQuery....why? I would ask him two questions: did you stop the alleged attack? Did you call the police? If the immediate answer to both isn't "Yes!"...to paraphrase Coach Green.."he is what we think he is!"

 

[Dove]

This interview pretty much places Sandusky at the scene of various alleged crimes. Nice job Mr. Amendola

 

[BHusky]

I think they are trying to seize upon the anti-McQuery sentiment. They are basically calling him a liar or an idiot. He either made up what he claims he saw or severely misrepresented the real situation. I was stunned they let him do that interview.

As far as an apology for McQuery....why? I would ask him two questions: did you stop the alleged attack? Did you call the police? If the immediate answer to both isn't "Yes!"...to paraphrase Coach Green.."he is what we think he is!"

Why, because everyone has essenatilly put a noose around his neck for his lack of action. He is called a coward and in protective custody because people assume he walked by the assault and let it continue. If he stopped the assault and then immediately reported it to the most influential man within the university then it is a little different story than what he is being crucified for. Right now they are just more rumors and we will see how that part of the story develops.

 

[UConnSportsGuy]

Was I the only one that was waiting for Chris Hanson from NBC's 'To Catch A Predator' series to come out in the middle of the interview to grill Sandusky? That would have been perfect!

 

[PUPPY4]

The man is clearly sick, and the interview is a cry for help.
If McQuery witnessed and intervened, then slept on it, what does that say about him?

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Why, because everyone has essenatilly put a noose around his neck for his lack of action. He is called a coward and in protective custody because people assume he walked by the assault and let it continue. If he stopped the assault and then immediately reported it to the most influential man within the university then it is a little different story than what he is being crucified for. Right now they are just more rumors and we will see how that part of the story develops.

Unless he thought Joe had arrest powers and/or it was ok to wait until the next day to report an in-progress child rape.....he is a coward or maybe just a moron.