Did you straight up ask jerry if he was sexually attracted to young people?
7 years ago Costas asked, and Jerry didn't have an answer.
Meet with him again, and ask.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Did you straight up ask jerry if he was sexually attracted to young people?
7 years ago Costas asked, and Jerry didn't have an answer.
Meet with him again, and ask.
Jerry did have answer to Costas. He said “No, I am not sexually attracted to young boys.”
Jerry’s delivery was not the greatest, but he had consistently maintained his innocence from day 1.
BOB COSTAS:
19:00:28:00 But isn't what you're just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don't necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it's entirely possible that you could've helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn't that possible?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
19:01:01:00 Well—you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of—my relationship with so many, many young people. I would—I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and—and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have—I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.
Well I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their leg.
I don't know where you got your quote, but here is an audio clip on youtube starting at the 40 second mark:
"Am I sexually attracted to underage boys? Sexually attracted? No. I enjoy young people. I love to be around them, but I am not sexually attracted to young boys."
7:20 seems a pretty ample demonstration as well. Incredible that he still couldn't give a convincing answer to this question a month later.
Last edited:
I don't deny the possibility that Jerry could be where he belongs, I'm merely stating that I'm unconvinced of it. To me, this entire saga has loose ends everywhere. One of the reasons Amendola was in over his head is that the OAG went out of its way to turn Sandusky into a media circus. Sandusky was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion long before the trial. As were P/C/S/S.
The circumstances around which Penn State was, IMO, chosen to take the fall are baffling! There was no reason to destroy Joe Paterno. There was no reason to package the Sandusky case with PSU as it's epicenter. That was done brazenly and with a purpose. PSU's response was equally baffling. The OGBOT didn't fight back. But inexplicably, they reinforced that narrative via Louis Freeh. Given the events we've witnessed, it's not hard for me to conclude that PSU has been taking the fall for TSM and I would like to know why.
The bottom line is that I have long believed the PSU Football part of this narrative to be falsely contrived in an effort by a few to avoid an even more costly outcome. Follow the money! I think it is easily arguable that the cases involving PSU did not meet the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict. As far as I'm concerned, the janitor case, along with the V2 and V6 cases should have never seen the light of day. And if they are bogus, how about the others? All you have to believe is that Jerry is a pedophile and guilty of sexually abusing even one boy, and most of the other charges fall right into place. But what if that one boy's story is BS? Which of the others, on its own merit, convinces you of Jerry's guilt?
To your point, if you stray from this forum, you get called horrible names for even suggesting such things. It happens even here when the trolls come around. I know you think you're adding a measure of objectivity, and I appreciate the civility. However, all you do is repeat the same circumstantial evidence over and over. Evidence upon which we all agree. It stalls the discussion. I would like to see people address the unanswered questions unearthed in the past 7 years, without their integrity or morality impugned.
For example, why was V6 golfing at Toftrees with Jerry, Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim a month prior to Jerry's indictments? Why would PSU pay him $6 million? Why would PSU pay Matt Sandusky anything at all? There are just so many questions left to be answered!
Indy, what I talk about is not circumstantial evidence. He was showering and having physical contact with underage boys. That’s a fact. He was caught in an otherwise empty gym behind some wrestling mats with another underage boy. That’s a fact.
There is no discussion to be furthered here Indy. You and Franco and a couple others say the same things over and over as well. You then support each other. I provide the same facts over and over so that you are aware that it is not just a creepy guy showering in a communal shower. I would probably not respond at all if you guys would acknowledge and mention the facts that do not support you position when you post about this. You would help yourselves out by just acknowledging how completely inappropriate, suspicious, and inexcusable it was for him to be doing what he was doing in the role he was serving. It’s baffling to me that even needs to be stated.
Yes, and he answered that he was not sexually attracted to young boys.
Sandusky is naive and not that smart.
Bob Costas questions whether Sandusky was wrongly convicted. In his review of Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" he states:
"In a way, I became part of the Sandusky story when I interviewed him for NBC soon after the allegations were made public. Sandusky's stumbling and seemingly incriminating answers convicted him in the court of public opinion and subsequently they were used by the prosecution during the trial. I am not prepared to say that Sandusky's conviction on multiple charges was incorrect. I am, however, willing to consider credible information backed by solid research. From what I have read, Mark Pendergrast has a case to make, It deserves a hearing. Many aspects of the Sandusky case, including the likely rush to judgment of Joe Paterno, should be reviewed with care. An informed public can then decide. Mark Pendergrast's book could well be a useful part of that re-examination."
I'll disagree. I think so much more factual information has become known, and so much supposedly factual information is is filled with very reasonable doubt, that Sandusky likely walks away with time served. I have to believe that cross-examination of all the alleged victims would be very eye-opening and enlightening.
That quote is from unaired footage of the Costas interview. It was played for the jury at trial.
http://nypost.com/2012/06/18/sandusky-jury-may-view-unaired-nbc-interview-footage/
“And I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped. There are many that I didn’t have – I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.”
That exchange could be used against in the current trial against Sandusky, according to NBC.
Sandusky’s odd response — that he didn’t seek out “every young person for sexual needs” — could make it look like he approached at least some kids, said NBC News legal analyst Wes Oliver.
“A reasonable interpretation of that statement is that he did in fact have sexual contact with these young men he supposedly helped,” Oliver said.
That exchange could be used against in the current trial against Sandusky, according to NBC.
Sandusky’s odd response — that he didn’t seek out “every young person for sexual needs” — could make it look like he approached at least some kids, said NBC News legal analyst Wes Oliver.
“A reasonable interpretation of that statement is that he did in fact have sexual contact with these young men he supposedly helped,” Oliver said.
Here's some audio:
It’s a very easy question. Hell no! should be the answer. Then he can argue he’s a very friendly guy.
At least try to make it a decent lie instead of some creepy explanation.
What’s Sandusky’s IQ? Pretty strong statement to say that is “not that smart.” He was smart enough to scheme a way to shut down high powered offenses regularly. He was smart enough to come up with a multi-million dollar agency for at risk youth.
He was also smart enough to graduate first in his class in college.
https://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_1999/July16/partings.html
Of course, we wasn’t distracted by dating girls so maybe he just just had more time to study than everybody else in his class.
https://web.archive.org/web/2011112...m/or/story11/11-20-2011-sandusky-early-years/
His friends say if there is one thing that seems odd, in retrospect, it might be this: Sandusky never dated in high school.
Those close to Sandusky remarked that the popular and handsome athlete was shy around girls and people outside of his circle of friends.
"Jerry was always kind of a loner," recalled Riggle. "He never dated in high school, and he didn't date throughout most of college. All he did was study in college. He didn't go out, didn't go to frat parties, while I was out doing things you were supposed to do as a college kid. It didn't seem odd at the time, but I remember in high school, we all had girlfriends, dated, went to dances, and Jerry was just never a part of that."
Those close to Sandusky remarked that the popular and handsome athlete was shy around girls and people outside of his circle of friends.
"Jerry was always kind of a loner," recalled Riggle. "He never dated in high school, and he didn't date throughout most of college. All he did was study in college. He didn't go out, didn't go to frat parties, while I was out doing things you were supposed to do as a college kid. It didn't seem odd at the time, but I remember in high school, we all had girlfriends, dated, went to dances, and Jerry was just never a part of that."
He was not smart enough to be able to issue a forceful denial to Costas’s question after he had been charged.
He was not smart enough to take Schreffler’s advice seriously to not shower again with kids (even if he only heard not to shower with v6).
I don’t know if you are implying that Sandusky is/was gay, but there is no credible evidence that he ever had a homosexual affair. I just think he had a low sex drive due to his low testosterone levels.
Sandusky may have done well in school, but it seems to me he may have been lacking a little in common sense.
I don’t think he realized the serious trouble he was in when he was arrested and didn’t retain the best legal counsel he could get.
I don’t think he realized the consequences of what he faced when he agreed to the interview with Costas.
I don’t think he realized the risk he faced when he had 1-on-1 unsupervised contact with at risk boys.
He's a predator who is constitutionally a truth teller. Straight up questions about this cause his brain to misfire.
He showered with kids because he has a overpowering compulsion.
Where is the crime?
Please tell me the most credible evidence that Sandusky sexually assaulted any of the individual 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with.
Interesting. Graduated first in his class in college, not smart enough to offer a strong denial about being sexually attracted to underage boys or to stop showering with underage boys. It’s almost as if there might be another reason beyond just intelligence that caused these two situations...........
That was pretty bad. That would be the lawyer that married his 16 year old client, right?
If you can show me credible evidence that he ever acted on urges, I would say you might have a point. To date, I am not aware of any such credible evidence.
They are all lying and Jerry isn't And PSU was eager to pay out millions to these lying, not credible victims. Common sense is your friend. Use it.
I don't find it that curious. Amendola had a track record of keeping pedophiles out of jail in Centre County, especially those well-known or influential in the community. He kept Harris Township Supervisor Christopher Lee out of jail in 2005, somehow getting him an ARD. Before that, he kept another local township supervisor out of jail after multiple complaints to police. At least one of those incidents had some familiar names tied to it - Gricar, Harmon, and Schreffler to name a few.
Now, I find that curious as well. So the attorney who impregnated then later married his 16 year old client was the go-to defense attorney for child sexual abuse cases in State College?
@JmmyW - if you are so inclined, would you please answer a couple of questions.
1. Do you think there was prosecutorial misconduct in the Sandusky case regarding
A. The knowingly false grand jury presentment that McQueary witnessed an anal rape?
B. Eshbach’s response to McQueary’s email the she twisted his words in the grand jury presentment and that McQueary had to keep quiet
C. The OAG leaking grand jury testimony for Sara Ganim’s March 2011 story in a call for any potential victims to come forward
D. Leiter and Rossman’s suggestive interviewing techniques used with v4 letting him know that other accusers had made specific accusations
E. Brady violations regarding the OAG failing to turn over potentially exculpatory information (such as McQueary’s email) to the defense
F. The malicious prosecution of Curley, Schultz and Spanier so that they would be unable to testify for the defense and be available to impeach McQueary’s testimony.
2. What is your opinion of whether Sandusky received a fair trial?
Unfortunately, that's exactly what common sense suggests. What could they be trying to hide that is so big that PSU would fall on the sword to the tune of $250 million?
All of these have been raised and addressed at many levels of appeal. It's cute when armchair lawyers think up these gotchas, but errors are made in most trials, a process is followed.
In each of the above, Jerry's team has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that these situations would have changed trial outcome.
Key reasons are that none of it changes that Jerry repeatedly showered, alone, with young boys, with physical contact, after having been warned by law enforcement not to. Nor does it counter blowing raspberry on boys not his own, hiding & groping boys behind wrestling mats in empty gyms, touching boys on their legs - and not being able to say for sure that didn't include fibgering underneath their shorts. Nor does it counter the filmed interviews with media where Jerry seems to admit his crimes.
Curley always seemed detached or in another space.
The former Penn State athletic director seemed extremely uncomfortable with his role as a cooperating witness for the prosecution in front of a courtroom packed with many Penn State loyalists, including football icon Franco Harris. On the witness stand, Curley professed an amazing lack of memory about most of the key events in the official Penn State sex abuse story line.
"I can't recall the specifics," Curley said about a meeting he had with former football Coach Joe Paterno to discuss what Mike McQueary heard and saw in his infamous 2001 visit to the Penn State locker room. "I have no recollection of that particular encounter," Curley said about a Sunday morning powwow he and Schultz had at Paterno's house to discuss what McQueary had witnessed in the showers. "I don't recall what his [Paterno's] response was."
About a meeting he and Schultz had with Spanier, Curley said, "We gave Graham a head's up." But he added, "I don't recall what the conversation was."
About another meeting Curley and Schultz had in President Spanier's office, Curley said, "I don't recall any of the conversation."
Well, asked the prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte, wasn't the meeting about what Mike McQueary said he heard and saw in the showers?
"I don't remember the specifics," Curley said.
Did McQueary say what he saw Jerry Sandusky doing with that boy in the showers was "sexual in nature," Schulte asked.
"No," Curley said.
Did McQueary say what he witnessed in the shower was horseplay, the prosecutor asked.
"I don't recall Mike saying that," Curley said. "I just walked through what Joe [Paterno] told us" about what McQueary told him about his trip to the locker room.
Well, the frustrated prosecutor asked, did you ever do anything to find out the identity of the boy in the shower with Jerry?
"I did not," Curley said. "I didn't feel like someone who is in danger," he said about the alleged victim.
But when the subject returned again to Curley's talks with Paterno, Curley responded, "I don't recall the specific conversation I had with Joe."
Curley downplayed the problems with Sandusky.
"I thought Jerry had a boundary issue," Curley said about Sandusky's habit of showering with young boys.
And what happened when Curley talked with Sandusky about that boundary issue, the prosecutor asked. Did Sandusky admit guilt?
"No, he didn't," Curley said.
Well, what did he say?
"I don't recall the specifics of the conversation," Curley replied.
When you consider that is the regularly called the “worse college sports scandal of all time” and people on the news were even talking about how it may devalue a Penn State degree, if there’s even a 10% chance Sandusky’s is innocent, we need have a national conversation.
I heard that Joe Amendola was recommended to Jerry by 2nd mile board members after the Aaron Fisher allegations arose. The fact that he chose someone with that personal background may be curious, but I don’t see any relevance unless Amendola and Sandusky knew each other prior to the allegations. I do not believe that was the case.
Actually we don’t . Because much of that is bullshit. My daughter graduated at the height of the scandal and walked right into employment.
Hysterical pronouncements by nobodies mean as much as the claims about Jerry’s innocence. They don’t do anything.
Pinkhippo - Please tell me the motivation for your keen interest in the case? Are you a supporter of the OAG, the old guard BOT, or is your thing CSA education and prevention?
All 6 of the issues I raised are legitimate issues of prosecutorial misconduct in my view. Some of them will probably even make it into a court of law before too long. The issue of the fundemental unfairness of Sandusky's trial will one day be a cautionary tale for law school of some of the critical components of an unfair trial that should be avoided. Even one instance of prosecutorial misconduct can be enough to win a defendant a new trial. It will be very interesting when Frank Fina's ethics complaint comes to a head with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and what happens if his law license is suspended for a year and a day.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting Placing multiple FutureCasts in favor of Penn State- Latest: Sportfan2017
-
-