- 58,586
- 30,001
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
Creepy interview last night. Just creepy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
DCAllAmerican:
Has anyone thought maybe, just maybe, just maybe, Joe P had a "hand" in all of this? How surprised would you be if he was found to be in on the action as well?
We've all thought about it, brother. I know it hasn't been tossed around in this thread, but in person, I haven't brought this up in person ONE TIME without someone mentioning that possibility, and every time, the look on people's faces saddens me. I can see it in their eyes: "He couldn't have. There's no way.Right? Just… he couldn't have."
And that's exactly my thought process. In Joe's defense (ONLY in regards to your reply), he displays none of the typical characteristics of a child sex offender, so I, for one, would be genuinely shocked if it came out that he were an active participant in all this as opposed to just a silent watchdog.
Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
Couple other things I wanted to throw out there:
- I guarantee no one will do serious time over any of this. Watch. Yeah, we'd all like to see the guilty hang; not gonna happen.
- Yes, you can absolutely show your innocence or guilt through your immediate response to a question. C'mon, y'all were seriously debating that?
You ask a dude named Kyle "Are you sexually attracted to little boys?", and he laughs and says "What the hell? Little boys?! Like… KIDS?! Hell mother effing no. Bring in a ploygraph on this bull *!$#. A little boy? hahaha @$%@ outta here."
Then you ask a dude named… Sandusky… the same thing, and his response is "Ummmm… define 'little boy.' Like what age? And what do you mean 'attracted'?"
You mean to tell me you're going to walk away w/ the same opinion of innocence/guilt towards both of them? Hell nah!
Ok...here's my thinking now. Suppose McQueary's statement IS true about trying to stop Sandusky. What's his (McQueary's) angle for staying at Penn State? Promises??? Blackmail??? And then, what's Paterno's rationale for KEEPING Sandusky around in addition to the year overlap between telling him he won't be the coach in waiting and when he was discovered to have showered w. the boy???Originally Posted by DoubleJs07
cRazy dav0 wrote:
if mcqueary did stop it ... then %#+ .... b/c everyone saw sandusky w/ the little boys on campus years later ... so what gives ... this is the wildest thing ever
i need to get back to skyrim ...
rashi wrote:
What kind of attorney would allow Sandusky to do an interview like this? He just incriminated himself.
The kind that's not familiar enough with criminal law to know that impregnating a 15-16 year old constitutes statutory rape....
Mary Iavasile was either 16 or 17, and Joe Amendola was 49.
Sigh...
psk2310:
rashi:
What kind of attorney would allow Sandusky to do an interview like this? He just incriminated himself.
The kind that's not familiar enough with criminal law to know that imprzegnating a 15-16 year old constitutes statutory rape...
- Sandusky: But admitting that I shower w/ boys? Isn't that admitting child sex abuse? And you admitting you got an underage girl pregnant, isn't that admitting statutory rape?
- attorney: Oh, no,no… we're good. Showering w/ a little boy is just horseplaying, nothing more. And I'm pretty sure I can't be accused of statutory rape, cuz that's only if you do her in the butt.
- Sandusky: Yeah, I think that's what I heard, too. Well I'm gonna go do this interview now. So we're good on me saying I showered w/ these kids?
- attorney: I think so. Probably. Yeah, yeah, we're fine. Most likely.
Freaking Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb are going to 'idiot' their way to a mistrial. Watch.
Originally Posted by af1 1982
I feel like you have to have no soul to be a defense attorney. It is one of the most dishonest professions you can have.
Bearcat23:
af1 1982:
I feel like you have to have no soul to be a defense attorney. It is one of the most dishonest professions you can have.
Right. The Supreme Court is absurd and foolish. Why honor someone's right to counsel. Guess attorneys should just pack it in and not represent defendants. Sounds like that'll work well.
Bro, there are long-tenured defense attorneys that will tell you it's a soulless profession.They do it out of justice for the accused, not out of morality.
Right. The Supreme Court is absurd and foolish. Why honor someone's right to counsel. Guess attorneys should just pack it in and not represent defendants. Sounds like that'll work well.Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
Bearcat23:
af1 1982:
I feel like you have to have no soul to be a defense attorney. It is one of the most dishonest professions you can have.
Justice/ Morality. Can you have one without the other? Philosophical debate right around the corner.Originally Posted by Bearcat23
Bro, there are long-tenured defense attorneys that will tell you it's a soulless profession.Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
Bearcat23:
Right. The Supreme Court is absurd and foolish. Why honor someone's right to counsel. Guess attorneys should just pack it in and not represent defendants. Sounds like that'll work well.They do it out of justice for the accused, not out of morality.
Terrible comparison. Are you really going to compare sleeping fully clothed in the same bed with someone to showering with another person?Originally Posted by DoubleJs07
This was talked about last night...and I DO see some of the parallels.
In comparison to Michael Jackson, many people who are in his corner are saying the SAME things. "He's just an overgrown kid." We all know the allegations brought against Mike, but people defended his behavior with children till they were blue in the face. %%$+, we had discussions on NT where certain folks thought it was just in Mike's nature to be as affectionate towards children as he was. I even remember a NTer going as far as saying they'd have no problem letting their child spend the night in the neverland ranch w. MJAnyways, I'm wondering (for those who defended Mike), what's your stance on Sandusky?