<p>News from NY, Sandusky hosted Fresh Air Fund children at his home…i guess getting them local wasn’t working…Authorities are attempting to locate this now adult,and researching records back to the 70’s ,as they believe he hosted others…ughhhhh</p>
<p>qdogpa, you conveniently left out the fact that Amendola married her and then bore a second child with her. Also, I read that the young woman was emancipated when she had her liaison with Amendola. Such conduct is not my cup of tea but that’s irrelevant.</p>
<p>Personally, I wouldn’t choose Amendola as partner for causal socializing, but let’s not try to further sensationalize this whole sordid matter. Let unfettered justice do its work.</p>
<p>
ttparent, I think you are right that will be what PSU will do and for many that might be enough, but for folks like me it will be always be viewed as sleazy and business as usual. JMO</p>
<p>so, Sandusky’s lawyer impregnated a 16 year old client he was representing when he was 49?</p>
<p>With these two upstanding gentlemen, when we talk about attorney client privilege, we can’t tell who is supposed to keep whose secret…</p>
<p>Lakewashington, you neeD to read before you post, i didn’t leave out the fact he married her…too quick to the punch?</p>
<p>Sandusky,bith have a proclivity for young children, theough Amerndola married his,and subsequently divorced her…another dirtbag</p>
<p>The depth of disgrace in former Happy Valley is mind numbing…</p>
<p>I keep waiting for someone to appear to have done the right thing at some point,may be waiting awhile</p>
<p>It appears that Amendola is a local general litigation lawyer from State College. If he were a famous celebrity defense lawyer, would you folks like that better?</p>
<p>I suspect a celebrity attorney will get involved at some point, if it is going to actually go to trial.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The legal system NEEDS lawyers to take cases for unsavory clients and to do their best in the defense. Otherwise, society would have no moral standing to mete out punishment.</p>
<p>Showering with AND hugging young boys in the shower? That would give me great pause as a juror…</p>
<p>That’s why the 2002 incident was so important–there was a definite sexual act involved, according to the GA–I’d have no trouble as a juror throwing the book at Sandusky if that case had come to trial.</p>
<p>Hunt, just trying to see if he has prior connections like the judge who let Sandusky out…Though the fact he impregnated a 16 yr old client makes one wonder his ethics not to mention his morals…</p>
<p>This whole scandal is like the circus, where the clown car comes into the ring and an endless parade of clowns exit…</p>
<p>I watched Costa’s interview with Sandusky. I agree with the “creepy” description of Sandusky. His delay and “hmmmm” in answering the question “are you sexually attracted to young boys” was extremely creepy. This man doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with showering with young boys and innappriately touching them. He dismisses he behavior as poor judgement. He says that his actions were not meant to be taken sexually. </p>
<p>IMO-this man is a pedophile in major denial. He doesn’t see his actions as sexual. He tries to justify his actions by calling them “horseplay”. His lawyer is now spinning the story and throwing two scenarios out to the public. The first one being that these were boys from troubled homes so we shouldn’t believe everything they say. The second being that Sandusky did indeed shower and touch these boys, but it wasn’t meant to be interpreted as sexual in nature. </p>
<p>My opinion is that Paterno is the start of the cover up. He was covering for his friend and covering his program and reputation. He was the one with the power to end Sandusky’s involvement within the walls of Penn St. I feel that he is the one who diluted the nature of his friend’s behavior as he past the info up the chain. </p>
<p>Someone reporting about the case described Penn St. and that area of Pennsylvania as Paterno’s Kingdom, where he was seen as there Emperor. He could do know wrong in their eyes. This man had the power to stop it. He chose his friendship with the man and his precious Penn St. over the safety of boys.</p>
<p>I feel that this is just the tip of the story. Once investigators begin to peel back the layers, the enormity of what was going on within Joe’s Kingdom is going to shock all of us.</p>
<p>“That’s why the 2002 incident was so important–there was a definite sexual act involved, according to the GA–I’d have no trouble as a juror throwing the book at Sandusky if that case had come to trial.”</p>
<p>But what if the DA loose the case against Shultz and Curley, meaning the words of McQ is found not to be credible? And the Janitor is already out, and then the defense can turn 3-4 of the victims in the list to say that nothing happened, the prosecutors planted seeds and made them give false accusations? Unlikely, but with no other evidences, I have to give it some pauses.</p>
<p><strong>So if I were on Sandusky’s jury, and the worst evidence presented was that he sometimes showered with a young boy, I would be forced to acquit him.</strong></p>
<p>Nothing I have been reading indicates that is the worst evidence against him. Everything I have been reading suggests he HOPES that is the worst evidence against him.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang - If you walked into a shower, saw a middle-aged man and 10-year-old boy, naked, towel slapping, at 9:30 pm, when no one else was in the building, what would you think?</p>
<p>As I think I mentioned upthread, the 2002 incident is probably one of the weakest charges in terms of the likelihood of getting a conviction against Sandusky. There’s no victim, only one witness, and a couple of other witnesses to cast some doubt on that witness’s testimony. And who knows how McQueary would hold up under cross-examination? How credible would he be? Would he admit to any uncertainty about what, exactly, he saw–ten years ago?</p>
<p>
You mean, if it really did just look like non-sexual “horseplay?” My first thought would probably be that this was father and son, assuming their appearances made that feasible.</p>
<p>Not sure that there is much to be gained pre-trial prognostications. This is not a game.</p>
<p>From what I gather (and I don’t know all the details) is that only men seemed to be “in the know”. I can’t help but feel that if some women had known/heard what was going on, this wouldn’t have gone on like it did. Too many guys just don’t want to “get involved”.</p>
<p>What about Mrs. Sandusky?</p>
<p>"… would you folks like that better?"</p>
<p>What I’d like better is an attorney who could stand at the microphone and say “I’ve been reviewing Penn State reports and correspondence from 1998 and 2002, and based on the contents therein I anticipate getting an acquittal for Mr. Sandusky.”</p>
<p>Only problem is, there’s no indication that any written materials were generated during prior “investigations.” What kind on institution fails to generate written reports of its investigations?</p>
<p>^ I believe there is a report of the 1998 investigation. I don’t know but I think there is none for 2002. Maybe because there was no investigation of the 2002 incident.</p>
<p>If you walked into an empty University locker room shower at 9:30pm and saw a middle-aged man and a 10 year-old boy, both naked, towel slapping, horsing around, touching each other…</p>
<p>If you walked into the shower of the empty University locker room of the team you were on and coached at your beloved college at 9:30pm and saw a former mentor and coach and a 10 year-old boy, both naked, towel slapping, horsing around, touching each other…</p>
<p>If were on a jury, would you believe a witness describing the above to be credible and telling the truth?
Would you wonder why, if true, he did not call the police to document the act, to prevent further abuse?
Would you wonder why no one ever really did anything till that point or afterwards, in spite of other allegations and investigations, to turn S in??? Does that harm his credibility?</p>
<p>It is McQ’s word against Sandusky’s.</p>