<p>Now that Sandusky is talking, who still thinks he is innocent?</p>
<p>Sandusky thought he was doing all these “poor” kids a favor by treating them with gifts and cash and his house to play in (sounds like Michael Jackson too, doesn’t it?). The problem is that he got carried away with his largess. Sandusky thought he was helping those kids. What started as a kind gesture of help (financial and emotional) evolved into a sezual relationship. Maybe even one of the kids returned Sandusky’s support with something $exual. He didn’t distinguish between good touch/bad touch and acting grown up enough to recognize it is simply wrong. Kids can be extremely trusting, but it’s our role to guide them, not take advantage of that trust. Unfortunately Sandusky didn’t know when to draw the line and say, No!</p>
<p>
I have a feeling the lawyer will be calling this a mistrial.</p>
<p>Interesting statement today from Syracuse head hoops coach Jim Boeheim. He didn’t read prepared remarks, but evidently spoke from the heart. This is the kind of sincere contrition and common decency that I’m still waiting to hear from anyone at Penn State.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seastruck _ I do not recall anyone on this thread expressing doubt on Sandusky’s guilt</p>
<p>LasMas- I am a big Jim Boeheim fan but no one from Penn State came out and said anything at all like what Boeheim said when this was announced. He called the kid a liar. There is no comparison. I also watched the statement I thought he was reading off of a card.</p>
<p>I can’t seem to watch the video of Boeheim’s comments (lots of videos are blocked overseas), so I can only read his comments. While I appreciate his apology, for me it’s a case of too-little/too-late. I hope he is sincere, but it seems like backpedaling.</p>
<p>In both cases - lots of CYA going on and it’s all just disgusting.</p>
<p>What is CYA?</p>
<p>Both of these very public situations are a reflection of some of the misinformation, lack of understanding/education that surround the issue of sexual abuse. It is clear, based on much of the reaction of the people close to the situations, that there is a huge need for more education and awareness about sexual abuse of children. Both of these examples have illustrated the denial, minimization, stigmatization and victim blaming that, in part, prevent victims from coming forward and reporting what, for them, is a life altering event.</p>
<p>Shame on all of these professionals who either turned away or questioned the motives of the victims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are giving him too much credit, Limabeans. If his latest victim is telling the truth, Sandusky threatened to hurt his family if he told anyone about the abuse. Those are not the actions of someone who doesn’t understand boundaries. He knew very well that what he was doing was wrong. He may rationalize his actions now by claiming that he felt like “family” to these boys but even he knows that family members don’t shower with young boys and give them “bear hugs”.</p>
<p>I also don’t buy that it started as a kind gesture and evolved into a sexual relationship. It is my guess that he started Second Mile with the motivation of having sexual access to vulnerable young boys. That’s what pedophiles do. They are good at it.</p>
<p>CYA=cover your ass</p>
<p>CYA is cover your ass.</p>
<p>I want to get a read from the LIE TO ME specialists.
GS has been on camera and spoken extensively, so there is a ton of footage to analyze.</p>
<p>EPTR, my thoughts exactly. scary to imagine that a jury could possibly believe Sandusky’s twisted, sociopathic version of reality.</p>
<p>limabeans-with all due respect, your statement that maybe even one of the kids returned Sandusky’s support with something sexual is quite offensive. in what world would a ten year old child think to be sexual in response to kindness??</p>
<p>^^^
I don’t think that Limabeans meant that child offered sexual favors in response to gestures from Sandusky but rather, that Sandusky may have made the child feel compelled to cooperate out of gratitude. That is also a common strategy for pedophiles.</p>
<p>IMO, Sandusky is a TERRIBLE liar. The way he looked over to his lawyer when he tried to answer the question, again, about being sexually attracted to young boys was very telling, IMO. Someone up thread suggested that he won’t stop talking until he confesses in public. I agree with this.</p>
<p>you may be correct EPTR that I misinterpreted Limabean’s statement, however the actual quote sounds pretty straightforward;</p>
<p>“Maybe even one of the kids returned Sandusky’s support with something $exual.”</p>
<p>what concerns me about this is that blaming the victim can be quite insidious with child sexual abuse, and I personally don’t want to see that reinforced here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, he really does seem to have a lot of trouble with that question. One reason why I can’t understand the attorney allowing him to blab to the media – if/when this ever goes to trial, both of those hesitant responses will be played for the jury, and they aren’t going to help Sandusky’s case one little bit.</p>
<p>Also, the Costas interview apparently prompted so much rage in some of the victims that they changed their minds about coming forward, or about testifying. So now the attorney allows another interview demonstrating that Sandusky still doesn’t quite get that pedophilia is a bad thing? I fear that somehow Sandusky will walk because of the patently terrible legal assistance that he’s getting.</p>
<p>He shows signs of a true pedophile. He just doesn’t understand that the ‘love’ he feels for these boys is sick. He sees it as a pure kind of love. When confronted with the question of whether or not he’s sexually attracted to young boys, he HAS to look at his lawyer because he’s honestly having a hard time answering the question. He really cannot separate the sick sexual attraction from ‘true love.’
And yes, it’s true. He may have grounds for appeal because of having a stupid lawyer.
I haven’t read every one of the posts, so I’m sorry if I’m just repeating what may have already been posted.</p>
<p>Confessing on national TV despite having a dolt for an attorney may not qualify as ineffective assistance of counsel under PA law. For all we know, the attorney told him, “don’t answer questions about X, Y or Z” and Sandusky does it anyway because he so wants to be able to justify that his actions were done in the name of love. </p>
<p>The attorney may be a bad media advisor, but that does not make him an incompetent attorney. (Would be glad to hear JHS chime in on this – DH has been inactive in PA way too long to know specifics on local practice.)</p>
<p>I don’t know a lot about the mind set of a pedophile but it seems to me that if a perpetrator threatens to hurt a victim or his/her family if he is revealed, that suggests to me that he is able to separate real love from the sexual victimization of children. Why else make a threat?</p>
<p>[Critics:</a> ‘Tough’ sheriff botched sex-crime cases - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/critics-tough-sheriff-botched-sex-crime-cases-185852410.html]Critics:”>http://news.yahoo.com/critics-tough-sheriff-botched-sex-crime-cases-185852410.html)</p>
<p>So if a sheriff could get away with this when not under any pressure at all, imagine what might have happened if under pressure from Penn State/Paterno.</p>