Jerry Sandusky has admitted showering with boys and engaging in “horseplay” with them. The embattled former Penn State Assistant Coach, in an interview with Bob Costas last night, admitted to showering with boys and touching their legs. He also stated that although he engaged in horseplay with them, it was never with a sexual purpose. These “admissions”, however, are no doubt little more than the beginning of a genius legal defense on his behalf.
Think about it. Sandusky cannot deny being in the showers with young boys. There is overwhelming evidence that he was. He cannot deny engaging in some form of contact with the boys. Clearly there was, as evidenced by the testimonies of so many others. What he can deny, however, is that the touching was improper. And although it defies all logic, it is the only legal strategy that currently has at his disposal and, for his purposes, the earlier he begins the defense the better his chances will be at trial.
The defense will grow stronger. The fact that Sandusky is even speaking with the media, in the midst of such wide-spread negativity as to his alleged actions, is proof that his legal defense team is seeking to spread this tactic. Look for the following comments from Sandusky and his counsel in the future:
“Clearly McQueary misunderstood what he saw. He only saw me horsing around with a boy in the shower. It was purely innocent. He caught a glimpse only, so I can understand his confusion. It’s not like he stood there and watched us for a while. And he told Coach Paterno that he saw something ‘inappropriate.’ That’s what Coach Paterno testified to. Don’t you think if he saw me actually having intercourse with a boy he would have told the Coach that? Or that he would have done something to stop me?”
“Listen, these were disadvantaged children. Who are you going to believe, the words of young, confused boys or me? I was the head of a charity that was aimed solely at helping these youths have a better life. I devoted untold hours of my time to helping them. Why would I do anything to harm them? Perhaps they were abused by others, including their own family members, and they are simply mis-recalling what they had endured.”
“Did you ever hear of the McMartin Day Care case? The one in New Jersey decades ago when one child accused an elderly grandmother-type day care owner and her son of molestation and then suddenly there were dozens of allegations? It was a witch-hunt, and made national news even before the days of cable and 24-hour news networks. Well, if you recall correctly, those were proved to be false. The kids were influenced by their parents to testify falsely. Isn’t it plausible that this is happening here? Some people are just out for a payday, you know.”
“Don’t you think that some of these boys were coached by their parents or Prosecutors to say certain things, even if the boys did not realize what was being done during their questioning or testifying? Don’t you think that questions that begin ‘do you remember’ are inherently biased and plant ideas into the minds of childen, that they are expected to testify in a certain way? We intend to prove that at trial. We intend to prove that the Prosecution, in an effort to damage the reputation of our client, were the actual persons who ‘molested’ these children with improper and leading questions to accomplish their singular and improper goal.”
“If anything that I did was that improper, then why did it take so long for these ‘allegations’ to become public, or for the great state of Pennsylvania to issue its indictment? Do you really think that it takes fifteen years to accuse someone, if the accusations are real and not contrived?”
“The janitor who allegedly saw another incident? You mean the dead janitor? He can’t testify now, so we cannot properly cross-examine him and we expect that his testimony from years ago will not be admissible in this trial.”
It is sheer legal brilliance. As an attorney who handles criminal cases (but none on this grand scale), I applaud their efforts at creating this strategy. As a person, on the other hand, it offends me. As a parent, it certainly offends me. But everyone is entitled to their legal defense, and at least one former Nittany Lion player has announced that he is raising money to fund Sandusky’s defense; we can assume, therefore, that he will have the best legal minds at his disposal.
Sandusky also took great pains during his chat with Costas to deny the legally-damaging inquiries. No, he answered, he is not a pedophile. No, he answered, he did not engage in any of the “horseplay” for sexual gratification. It was nothing more than carefully contrived testimony, albeit in an interview-type setting. We are witnessing the beginning of a well-orchestrated legal defense, and nothing more.
Will the strategy work? It is possible. There are numerous examples of people who were adjudged guilty in the court of public opinion but who garnered a “not guilty” verdict at trial. OJ Simpson was able to walk the streets and golf courses of Florida for years after his logic-defying verdict of not guilty in his trial for killing his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Casey Anthony is walking the streets somewhere even though everyone had her pegged as her daughter’s killer. The late Michael Jackson walked out of court a free man despite admitting to having slept in the same bed with young boys. So it is possible, despite all of the negative press, that Sandusky will somehow be able to convince a jury of his peers that he did not molest these boys, and that he only engaged in innocent “horseplay” with them.
But let’s hope not.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Lucinda Bliss
Ann Nichols
PatienceP
The Flylooper
koshersalaami
Deborah Sosin
Salon.com
Comments
r. for making me think.
There once was a standard of appropriate behavior that clearly governed adult/child interaction, especially in potentially sexually abusive relationships. Sandusky is certainly old enough and in a profession that understands that. Simply that he would put himself in this position is evidence enough of guilt. If he didn't know better, he damned well ought to have.
Jon - lots of it - and if I am making YOU think, then I am doing a pretty good job.
Token - you are absolutely correct. Thanks for sharing, especially with the personal perspective.
I don't know what happened, although he is entitled under our constitutional order to make a legal defense, because there always exists the possibility that someone charged is innocent, although 99/1000 times, the defendant is guilty of some crime, if not necessarily the maximum charge, if some lesser included offense. His case won't have that property, as he either committed an assault or not.
Whether he did that is now for a court of law to decide.
As to his claim, one would think he would argue that people used to do things they don't do anymore like shower with people. I never thought much of that growing up, but over time there was a distance encouraged between adults and children because of the concern of legal liability, around the time of McMartin, where before... that's just how it was with some people, mainly if you had a rural background, as closer quarters were normal. As a factual matter, there are some people who are... annoying about physical space, although, they may feel that people who are bothered by that are cold and distant too.
I have seen first hand the flip side of that, in the sense that someone I knew for a fact was not a danger to children was made to feel so because the other party didn't like rural traditions of sharing beds. In a related vein, my fiance once commented on how when she went to Alabama, everyone slept in the same bed, which she thought was "gross," her own words, even though nothing bad was happening, and she was totally confident about that, she just liked a lot of say over her personal space.
People wouldn't do that either now, although, is that a better world?
For example, I have taken judo classes where foreigners commented that Americans don't like to be touched very much compared to where they are from, again, Americans having an ability that has become a need for more physical space. Sandusky may or may not have committed a crime; time will tell. And people will do the logical thing, and be more physically distant.
Maybe that's not all to the good either, independent of if he has concocted some defense or not.
This is particularly chilling: “Listen, these were disadvantaged children. Who are you going to believe, the words of young, confused boys or me?"
I think that was his M.O from the start and it makes him cunning on top of being a pervert.
I'm all for innocent until proven guilty , and the Mcmartin case must serve as a cautionary tale,but it seems that prosecutors and police, in this case, where bent on protecting him, not persecuting him.
Seems like nobody involved comes out of this looking good…and most come out of it looking like dirt.
My guess: Sandusky eventually puts a gun in his mouth and fires it.
@Frank Apisa- I hate the ones who let it happen more than the pervert who seems compelled by urges. These selfish sociopathic types rarely kill themselves though.
I used to hate the way the old guys did things-but now i am not so sure that they were wrong.
You didn't emphasize that the most serious charge - McQueary's does not have a currently identified victim.
The horse play defense worked once with the County Prosecutor and the State Child Welfare Agency -- as described in the NY Times in some detail, in 1998. In that situation, the Penn State Campus Police seems to have served him up on a silver platter to the authorities who then bungled it.
They are working on a new law (what else) regarding mandatory reporting requirements. The new law would have put more responsibility on McQueary (and whatever you think of the guy, he did more to bring down Sandusky than anyone else).
My only prediction is that everyone will align themselves against McQueary and try to shift as much blame as possible on him.
The grand jury report was written to shift as much blame on Penn State as possible and minimize the failures of the County Prosecutor.
Your hypothetical defense of Sandusky illustrates why stopping the guy wasn't as simple as it was made to appear last week.
Penn State could have done a lot more. And the world will never forget it.
They also could have simply shipped the guy out of town in 1998. After all, what is the best way to treat a potential bad actor that has not been either charged or convicted of a crime?
Matt - thanks and perhaps we will, at the risk of becoming a "one-trick pony" (horrible horse reference).
O'Really - thanks and yes, it does sound like a politician is involved.
Fernsy - you are probably right about the fact that local law enforcement sought to protect him (and Paterno). But it seems like the state feels otherwise now.
willie - so true.
Frank - you are right that nobody involved looks good, but putting a gun in his mouth won't change that.
Fay - thank you and as I said above, I also hope that it does not work.
snowden - failing the poor or protecting the rich and powerful? I would opt for the latter.
Nick - they could have done so much more. Had Paterno or his cronies simply done the right thing in 1998, or 2002, or any other time, we would not be having these conversations now. The entire controversy would have been limited to Sandusky himself, with the others looking stellar for having turned him in - or, even better, having taken initiatives to try and rehabilitate him. It could have been a positive story that arose from filth. Instead, it is just layers of filth piled on top of each other.
Erica - he has so much more to say, I am sure. The next couple of weeks should be very interesting.
RD - you make an interesting point, especially about the bail. Perhaps someone can explain why an alleged pedophile is walking the streets on bail, whereas convicted MJ killer Dr. Conrad Murray is in jail without bail as if he were to walk the streets carrying needles to inject people with sleep drugs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/joseph-amendola-jerry-sandusky-impregnated-teen_n_1095005.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applied in criminal cases depends on what a jury considers reasonable, and as we saw with the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony cases, a clever attorney can befuddle the jury. But -- in those cases the victims weren't around to testify. You can bet your ass that in this case, there will be plenty of victims testifying.
Sandusky's attorney may try to bring up the McMartin case in the media as another smokescreen. But it has little or no bearing, since in that case, the purported victims were pre-schoolers, whose testimony is always understandably suspect. Graphic testimony of sexual abuse from grown men who were 10-11 yr old victims is quite another matter.
But even if Sandusky escapes conviction -- and I'd say that is extremely doubtful -- he still is in deep trouble. As you are well aware, the legal standard in civil court is "the preponderance of evidence". By that standard, Sandusky doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Some are wailing about Sandusky and others being tried in the press, about a rush to judgment and the presumption of innocence. What these people don't seem to comprehend is that there are three courts Sandusky must face -- criminal, civil and the court of public opinion. That last court has no requirement of presumed innocence or even a preponderance of evidence. In that last court, Sandusky has already been judged guilty as sin, and his mealy-mouthed parsing of words in the Costa interview only served to cement his conviction.
The only requirement in the court of public opinion is the wink and a nod disclaimer "alleged", as in "this scumbag is alleged to have raped dozens of vulnerable young boys he claimed to be protecting."
If, for example, Sandusky drops his pants in court, revealing his penis is actually a sigmoidoscope, maybe practicing medicine without a license.
Paul - the first paragraph is correct, and that may be where they go when it becomes apparent that the testimony will be too great to overcome. As to the second paragraph, that's just plain gross.
Wren - interesting question. Another concerns the Prosecutor who disappeared years ago. You would think that would be something that the press would jump on, but thus far his disappearance (and being declared legally dead) has been little more than a footnote to the other stories.