Sandusky to Costas in exclusive 'Rock Center' interview: "I shouldn't have showered with those kids"

[kpete]

Source: MSNBC

Jerry Sandusky to Bob Costas in exclusive 'Rock Center' interview: "I shouldn't have showered with those kids."
Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:18 PM EST
By Jessica Hopper
Rock Center


"I say that I am innocent of those charges," said Sandusky in a phone interview with Costas.

When asked by Costas, "Are you a pedophile," Sandusky responded "No."

.......................

"I could say that 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 legs without intent of sexual contact," said Sandusky.

When pressed by Costas about what Sandusky was willing to concede that he'd done was wrong, Sandusky said, "I shouldn't have showered with those kids."


Read more: http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/14/8804779-jerry-sandusky-to-bob-costas-in-exclusive-rock-center-interview-i-shouldnt-have-showered-with-those-kids

[bluestateguy]

1. We do need to remember that he is innocent until proven guilty

Even if he looks really guilty.

[lbrtbell]

19. That witness thing pretty much clinches it for me

He deserves a trial, mainly for the sentencing.

[bluestateguy]

20. Me too

But that is what I believe as a person. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard which is all that matters in the end.

[TheWraith]

45. Normally I'm the first one to advocate that same standard.

However this is a much different situation than, say, something like the Duke Lacross case. Here you have multiple witnesses to multiple incidents, who have had their testimony individually vetted by a grand jury, and whose accounts fit into a consistent pattern of behavior. That's a much stronger standard than if it were a single accuser who hadn't been vetted.

[truthisfreedom]

27. Jesus, witness after witness? Victim after victim coming forward, and they granted him an interview?

America's media is truly sick.

[TorchTheWitch]

29. innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law

It has never applied to public opinion and was never intended to for what should be obvious reasons.

Oh yes, I absolutely believe he is innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.

My opinion, however, based upon the extraordinary amount of evidence is that he's guilty as sin and the scum of the earth and had better bloody well not be coming into contact with even one single child more.

I guarantee you there is no one here that truly believes he is innocent until proven guilty outside a court of law, and why is that? Because not a soul here including you would allow this man unfettered access to your kids or anyone else's. And that simple fact means that you DON'T believe he is innocent until proven guilty outside a court of law despite any completely unnecessary claims to the contrary.

[Critters2]

49. Agreed. What turns it for me personally is all the Grand Jury testimony.

All of it given under penalty of perjury. That's some pretty good evidence, istm.

[SoapBox]

2. This perv makes me want to vomit...

And all the cover up! Disgusting.

SO then is this interview, the first step in blaming the victims? It was the kids fault??

And how about that judge?

Sickening.

[Blue_Tires]

3. Sandusky's attorney is probably slitting his wrists right now...

wow...How could he have ever thought going on TV would be a good thing?? Unless he's setting up a pattern of eccentric behavior for an insanity plea...

[JohnnyLib2]

4. Has the attorney been named?

Strange, might strange.

[freshwest]

5. One of GWB's.

[Tansy_Gold]

8. I believe it's Paterno who hired one of GWHB's attorneys

Not Sandusky, not GWB.

[freshwest]

11. Yeah, that's likely the case. Bye now.

[Lars39]

32. Heh...hired, or been assigned?

Whole thing reeks.

[24601]

7. Dunno - are Moe, Larry or Curley around? n/t

[Demit]

15. His lawyer is Joe Amendola.

[NYC_SKP]

22. Joe Amendola raped a 16 year old girl, a client, impregnated her.

Per another OP.

[Tansy_Gold]

34. He didn't rape her

She was over the age of consent (16 in PA) and he was "mentoring" her, according to her mother. Amendola filed a petition of emancipation for her before her 17th birthday, and about that time she got pregnant. They eventually married and had another child but have now separated/divorced.

Per the NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sandusky_lawyer_impregnated_teenage_7jKwQMCeBlm9RSdr9zeutK

Please don't sensationalize things any more than they already are.

It should be noted, too, that Amendola has been Sandusky's attorney since at least last spring.

[NYC_SKP]

35. Oh, Pardon Me. He Had Perfectly Natural Consentual 47yo > 16yo Happy Sex.

No power differential there, nothing to be perturbed about.

:eyes:

It might not be rape by the legal definition in that state.

But it's rape.

:donut:

[Tansy_Gold]

36. There may be coercion, there may be infatuation

There may be idol worship, but considering that she was 16, over the age of consent, and no charges were ever filed, I'm going to give that 16 year old girl the benefit of the doubt and say it was consensual, and not rape. Seeing as how she eventually married him and they had another child together, let's not make accusations where none are founded.

I'm not defending the guy, but I am defending the girl's right and ability to have made her own decisions. Would I at 16 have happily had anything to do with a 49-year-old? No, probably not, because at 16 I was happily having things to do with a 19-year-old, thank you very much.



TG

[TheWraith]

46. Agreed. Plus, it does a disservice to rape victims.

"Legal but creepy" is a huge difference from rape by force or the rape of a child.

[Tansy_Gold]

47. Also, it takes away a woman's autonomy.

At 16, was she old enough to make up her own mind about her sex life? She was old enough to have a job, smart enough to have graduated from high school in two years. Is she as mature as the 48/49 year old guy she's working for? Well, we don't know that and that's not really part of the equation. Is the age difference a big thing? Those of us on the outside may think so, but we don't know what was going through Mary's head or heart at the time. Or Joe's. (Charlie Chaplin's fourth wife, Oona, was 37 years his junior, and married him as soon as she legally could after turning 18. They were married for 35 years and had eight children.)

The commonwealth of Pennsylvania says Mary was old enough at 16 to make that decision. Her decision may make some of us uncomfortable, and we may think that her lawyer/boss/lover behaved in an unethical manner, but since Mary didn't seem to have a problem with it, I think we need to show her some respect.

And by granting Mary that autonomy, we grant it to all women and thereby say that we respect them and we trust them -- so when they come to us and say they've been raped, whether forcibly or by threats or coercion, we will believe them.

[No Elephants]

38. Sandusky has known for a while that these charges were likely.

Some have speculated that things were delayed until Paterno broke some coaching record or other, but that is only speculation.

However, Sandusky has probably been preparing for this since before last Spring.,

[Tansy_Gold]

42. Sandusky has known since 2008

That's when he notified the Second Mile that he was under investigation. How much he was in denial about it, I have no way of knowing. But he was cognizant enough that he told the foundation and they revoked some of his privileges or whatever.

He's had Joseph L. Amendola as his attorney since at least last April, per this http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/2011/04/jerry-sandusky-case-what-are.html I find some of the things in this blog post disagreeable, but it does point out that Sandusky's "troubles" and at least some of the details were public (if not common) knowledge more than seven months ago.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

30. "How could he have ever thought going on TV would be a good thing??"

My thought too. I assume that the first two words out of his attorney's mouth were "shut up."

[rocktivity]

44. Maybe the first two words out of his lawyer's mouth were "PAY up"

Maybe Sandusky did it because he needs money.

:think:
rocktivity

[Critters2]

50. Exactly. I and the congregation I serve were victims of a crime,

and our lawyer told me not to talk to the media. Ever. Under any circumstances.

But THIS guy gives an interview?!

[rocktivity]

6. Are accused sex offenders in Pennsylvania normally allowed to leave town

with unsecured bail and without a tracking device?

And can we look forward to interviews with the victims or their families?

:crazy:
rocktivity

[avaistheone1]

9. Oh yeah, he shouldn't have had sex with them either.

:grr:

[madokie]

17. its not called sex its called sodomy rape

give him a fair trial and if, which I'm sure he will be, found guilty put him in general pop. Don't think he'll last long no matter his 6ft5inch size

[avaistheone1]

37. Totally agreed.

[24601]

10. Did this part of the interview make to to Costa's broadcast:?

Costa: You touched their legs?

Sandusky: Yes, but only without force and with consent - in a non-sexual manner.

Costa: Did they ever touch your leg?

Sandusky: Yes, but only without force and with consent - and in a non-sexual manner.

Costa: Which leg?

Sandusky: The middle one - oh shit, was that my outside voice? This is off the record, right?

Costa: It's on the record and you're live on the air.

Sandusky: I never,ever had sex with any of those boys and I never lied, not one time. But If I had, it would have been only without force and with consent and in a non-sexual manner.

Costa: You realize none of these boys was old enough to give consent, don't you?

Sandusky: I'm really fucked, aren't I.

Costa: Dunno, first offense, you might get off easy, say only 300 years.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. This guy is playing the system to the hilt.

[DinahMoeHum]

13. Those words may just come back to hang him.

Literally.

[and-justice-for-all]

14. "I shouldn't have showered with those kids" YA THINK! nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

16. Why the hell was he given an interview??? GFG

[Blue_Tires]

31. Ratings, obviously

What I'll never understand is why he agreed to do it...Even with a one-in-a-billion chance that he's innocent, nothing you could say or do on national TV will help your case...

[unkachuck]

18. "I shouldn't have showered with those kids."

....very good, sandusky....what else shouldn't you have done with those kids?

[lonestarnot]

21. That ain't all you shouldn't have done you freak!

[99 Percent Sure]

23. Predatory, Lowdown, Lowlife, Pedophilic,

Freak kept repeating certain Costas questions about raping boy children. He's too arrogant to kill himself; he actually thinks he's going to get out of this intact.

Pervert.

[RainDog]

24. vomit n/t

[fujiyama]

25. Just reading this infuriates me and sickens me

Why the fuck is he not in jail? Why is he even allowed out on bail? And this ass hole judge couldn't recuse himself. Maybe it's just me, but I cannot for the life of me understand the level of obsession people have for college football. fuck Penn State football and fuck those that would cover up this kind of shit because of a fucking game where people throw a weird shaped ball back and forth.

:puke:

[pepperbear]

26. how about not putting yourself in a position where you have to regret showering with kids?

Just sayin'.

[alp227]

28. GUILTY. I can't wait for Sandusky's heart to stop beating.

Also in my crystal ball, SOMEONE in central PA will attempt vigilante justice on this monster who got away with it because of PSU's good ol' boy network.

[hedgehog]

33. How did Costas get through the interview without decking the guy?

He must have spent the rest of the day washing his hands over and over to get rid of the stench! I'm not suggesting Costas was part of the cover-up, just expressing sympathy that he had to treat Sandusky with respect.

[No Elephants]

40. Actually, Costas did not have to treat Sandusky with respect, or even allow Sandusky a platform.

[IggleDoer]

39. Not to offer Sandusky a defense, but ...

... James Dobson, leader of focus on the family, has advocated that fathers (and father figures) should shower with their boys and show them their penis, presumably to give them strong heterosexual tendencies. Don't ask me, I don't see the reasoning here.

Couldn't Sandusky claim that he was showering with the kids to keep them from catching "the Gay" and bring Dobson in as an "expert" witness. They could make it a "Christian" circus just to confuse a jury.

[No Elephants]

41. The victims weren't Sandusky's sons, so even the "Dobson defense" doesn't apply.

Not as though listening to a lunatic is a defense to anything that carries any weight in court to begin with.

The fact that Dobson voices a wacko theory does not qualify him as an expert witness.

[IggleDoer]

43. The kids were "at risk kids."

They may well have seen Sandusky as a father figure. To me, that makes things worse.

[AngryOldDem]

48. Case closed, then.

No need for a trial. An adult showering with a minor is enough right there to convince me of his guilt on all charges.