Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

Has he mentioned his book yet?

He touched on it.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.

Explain to me how you think that fact could sway a jury in this case.

Oh I don't know that it necessarily could but if true it does give some credence to the "showering together, no boundaries, manly men" idea. I'm not saying it would work, but it would be an interesting point. I mean, if his defense is that showering close together is the "real experience" of PSU coaches and he was trying to show those kids what that would be like and it that turns out to be true that the coaches always shower together, sure it might make someone think more about that.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Has he mentioned his book yet?

He touched on it.

Why did we never get a :rimshot: emoticon around here?

 

[enfuego]

If anything is going in the river, tie a heavy weight to it and string it around this wackos neck... The shower comment was all I needed.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.

Explain to me how you think that fact could sway a jury in this case.

Oh I don't know that it necessarily could but if true it does give some credence to the "showering together, no boundaries, manly men" idea. I'm not saying it would work, but it would be an interesting point. I mean, if his defense is that showering close together is the "real experience" of PSU coaches and he was trying to show those kids what that would be like and it that turns out to be true that the coaches always shower together, sure it might make someone think more about that.

Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Has he mentioned his book yet?

He touched on it.

Why did we never get a :rimshot: emoticon around here?

We did :Sandusky:

 

[CrossEyed]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

 

[Sea Duck]

After watching Jerry Sandusky's interview, I am convinced that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.

 

[Das Boot]

Has he mentioned his book yet?

What book?

 

[Kenny Powers]

Hard to believe anything Sandusky says, but I was intrigued that the lawyer said they will have even some of the victimes in the grand jury report (1 being the boy McQueary was questioned about) testify in defense of Sandusky.

One thing is for sure, this trial will have my attention more than any other has or likely ever will.

 

[Das Boot]

this guy is not believable at all. not really sure what he was hoping to accomplish by doing this interview.

I'd say he's about at the point of having nothing left to lose.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.

Explain to me how you think that fact could sway a jury in this case.

Oh I don't know that it necessarily could but if true it does give some credence to the "showering together, no boundaries, manly men" idea. I'm not saying it would work, but it would be an interesting point. I mean, if his defense is that showering close together is the "real experience" of PSU coaches and he was trying to show those kids what that would be like and it that turns out to be true that the coaches always shower together, sure it might make someone think more about that.

Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.

why?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.

Explain to me how you think that fact could sway a jury in this case.

Oh I don't know that it necessarily could but if true it does give some credence to the "showering together, no boundaries, manly men" idea. I'm not saying it would work, but it would be an interesting point. I mean, if his defense is that showering close together is the "real experience" of PSU coaches and he was trying to show those kids what that would be like and it that turns out to be true that the coaches always shower together, sure it might make someone think more about that.

Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.

why?

Because it's more interesting than calling each other names or posting stupid emoticons?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.

Explain to me how you think that fact could sway a jury in this case.

Oh I don't know that it necessarily could but if true it does give some credence to the "showering together, no boundaries, manly men" idea. I'm not saying it would work, but it would be an interesting point. I mean, if his defense is that showering close together is the "real experience" of PSU coaches and he was trying to show those kids what that would be like and it that turns out to be true that the coaches always shower together, sure it might make someone think more about that.

Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.

Well, I kept rereading what you wrote and that is exactly what was happening over here. I just don't think anything you wrote is credible in terms of connecting the dots, which is what CE asked for.But as someone mentioned upthread, we can't take anything for granted that it's a slam dunk case. The janitor doesn't have mental capacity and his co-workers cannot testify (inadmissible hearsay). They don't currently know the identity of the victim McQuerry saw. Unfortunately victims are probably going to have to come forward to put this guy away.I feel bad just thinking about the victims who will have to go through hell again just to see justice done.

 

[Kenny Powers]

All he feels bad about is showering with them. He doesn't think the fallout at Penn State was his fault. He really stumbled when Costas asked him directly 'Are you sexually attracted to young boys?'He finally said no, but said he was attracted to young people (referring to caring about their lives, futures). Really reminds me of Michael Jacksons statements about how he slept in bed with kids and just loved them. Same kinda creepy vibe.

Needless to say, I believe nothing that this guy states at this point, but I didnt think he stumbled on saying he isnt attracted to boys. He stumbled on trying to substantiate as to why he "liked" kids so much, but I didnt think the sexual part was stumbled on. Not like he was asked some softball questions here either.

 

[mr roboto]

All he feels bad about is showering with them. He doesn't think the fallout at Penn State was his fault. He really stumbled when Costas asked him directly 'Are you sexually attracted to young boys?'He finally said no, but said he was attracted to young people (referring to caring about their lives, futures). Really reminds me of Michael Jacksons statements about how he slept in bed with kids and just loved them. Same kinda creepy vibe.

Needless to say, I believe nothing that this guy states at this point, but I didnt think he stumbled on saying he isnt attracted to boys. He stumbled on trying to substantiate as to why he "liked" kids so much, but I didnt think the sexual part was stumbled on. Not like he was asked some softball questions here either.

IIRC after the question was asked, he paused, started talking about how he did like kids, then at the end, in summation, said "no" to the sexual attraction.All other "No" answers were automatic. This one seemed to get him off his script.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

they said they believe they know which kid was in the shower with Sandusky when McQueary walked in and that the boy/man will testify that McQueary is lying/mistaken. That's the only victim I recall them mentioning as a potential defense witness.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

He implied they have found Victim #2 (who the state had not found and did not testify in front of the Grand Jury) - the one who was alleged to have been witnessed by McQueary - and that he will corroborate Sandusky's version of the events.

 

[CrossEyed]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

Pretty sure he was talking specifically about the victims in the grand jury case, including the unidentified victim that McQueary witnessed.The problem with that (unidentified victim) is that they can bring almost any boy forward now that he ever showered with (and who knows how many that could be) to say it was him in the shower that night and no rape happened.I also thought it was very interesting that he was able to recall a lot of very specific detail of that shower incident, but very few details of the conversation he had with the one victim's mother.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.

Explain to me how you think that fact could sway a jury in this case.

Oh I don't know that it necessarily could but if true it does give some credence to the "showering together, no boundaries, manly men" idea. I'm not saying it would work, but it would be an interesting point. I mean, if his defense is that showering close together is the "real experience" of PSU coaches and he was trying to show those kids what that would be like and it that turns out to be true that the coaches always shower together, sure it might make someone think more about that.

Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.

Well, I kept rereading what you wrote and that is exactly what was happening over here. I just don't think anything you wrote is credible in terms of connecting the dots, which is what CE asked for.But as someone mentioned upthread, we can't take anything for granted that it's a slam dunk case. The janitor doesn't have mental capacity and his co-workers cannot testify (inadmissible hearsay). They don't currently know the identity of the victim McQuerry saw. Unfortunately victims are probably going to have to come forward to put this guy away.I feel bad just thinking about the victims who will have to go through hell again just to see justice done.

Fair enough. The coaches showering together thing seems very odd to me and seems to tie into a possible defense in this case. Thought it was worth discussing.

 

[Kenny Powers]

All he feels bad about is showering with them. He doesn't think the fallout at Penn State was his fault. He really stumbled when Costas asked him directly 'Are you sexually attracted to young boys?'He finally said no, but said he was attracted to young people (referring to caring about their lives, futures). Really reminds me of Michael Jacksons statements about how he slept in bed with kids and just loved them. Same kinda creepy vibe.

Needless to say, I believe nothing that this guy states at this point, but I didnt think he stumbled on saying he isnt attracted to boys. He stumbled on trying to substantiate as to why he "liked" kids so much, but I didnt think the sexual part was stumbled on. Not like he was asked some softball questions here either.

IIRC after the question was asked, he paused, started talking about how he did like kids, then at the end, in summation, said "no" to the sexual attraction.All other "No" answers were automatic. This one seemed to get him off his script.

I think he started and ended with "no", but I could be wrong

 

[BobbyLayne]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

Pretty sure he was talking specifically about the victims in the grand jury case, including the unidentified victim that McQueary witnessed.The problem with that (unidentified victim) is that they can bring almost any boy forward now that he ever showered with (and who knows how many that could be) to say it was him in the shower that night and no rape happened.

I also thought it was very interesting that he was able to recall a lot of very specific detail of that shower incident, but very few details of the conversation he had with the one victim's mother.

Exactly - and doesn't that seem obvious to other people reading this thread? Just seems like such an incredibly weak defense attempt, and one that any halfway competent prosecutor would shoot holes in as soon as it was presented.

 

[steviey]

When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys he first paused and then repeated the question. To me, repeating the question signals someone trying to think up an answer when the immediate answer should have been "no".

 

[BobbyLayne]

Fair enough. The coaches showering together thing seems very odd to me and seems to tie into a possible defense in this case. Thought it was worth discussing.

Off topic, but actually it's pretty common at both the collegiate and pro level. It's one of those things people always joke about (WTF do you guys need to shower for? You've been walking up and down the sideline in 50 degree weather!).

 

[BobbyLayne]

When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys he first paused and then repeated the question. To me, repeating the question signals someone trying to think up an answer when the immediate answer should have been "no".

Did he look up and to the right when he paused?

 

[CrossEyed]

When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys he first paused and then repeated the question. To me, repeating the question signals someone trying to think up an answer when the immediate answer should have been "no".

Did he look up and to the right when he paused?

It was a phone interview.

 

[BobbyLayne]

When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys he first paused and then repeated the question. To me, repeating the question signals someone trying to think up an answer when the immediate answer should have been "no".

Did he look up and to the right when he paused?

It was a phone interview.

Dangit! Thought I was going to break this thing wide open tonight.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

question was "are you sexually attracted to young boys?"

he first said "sexually?" then paused a bit and said "No, not sexually."

It was kind of a weird answer.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys he first paused and then repeated the question. To me, repeating the question signals someone trying to think up an answer when the immediate answer should have been "no".

Did he look up and to the right when he paused?

It was a phone interview.

Dangit! Thought I was going to break this thing wide open tonight.

His attorney did consistently.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

Pretty sure he was talking specifically about the victims in the grand jury case, including the unidentified victim that McQueary witnessed.The problem with that (unidentified victim) is that they can bring almost any boy forward now that he ever showered with (and who knows how many that could be) to say it was him in the shower that night and no rape happened.

I also thought it was very interesting that he was able to recall a lot of very specific detail of that shower incident, but very few details of the conversation he had with the one victim's mother.

Exactly - and doesn't that seem obvious to other people reading this thread? Just seems like such an incredibly weak defense attempt, and one that any halfway competent prosecutor would shoot holes in as soon as it was presented.

If they do actually get victim #2 to testify for Sandusky, Id guess that he confirms the same date, time, etc as McQueary and so on.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Costas said that if everyone who claimed to have seen him over the years was lying, that he must be the single most persecuted person in the world.

Sandusky didn't really have an answer to that one.

I'm not a big fan of little Bob, but that's pretty awesome.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

If they do actually get victim #2 to testify for Sandusky, Id guess that he confirms the same date, time, etc as McQueary and so on.

anybody on the internet can confirm those details now. it was in the grand jury report.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

Pretty sure he was talking specifically about the victims in the grand jury case, including the unidentified victim that McQueary witnessed.The problem with that (unidentified victim) is that they can bring almost any boy forward now that he ever showered with (and who knows how many that could be) to say it was him in the shower that night and no rape happened.

I also thought it was very interesting that he was able to recall a lot of very specific detail of that shower incident, but very few details of the conversation he had with the one victim's mother.

Exactly - and doesn't that seem obvious to other people reading this thread? Just seems like such an incredibly weak defense attempt, and one that any halfway competent prosecutor would shoot holes in as soon as it was presented.

If they do actually get victim #2 to testify for Sandusky, Id guess that he confirms the same date, time, etc as McQueary and so on.

That guy is 19 now. He's going to be rock solid with certainty on where he was 9.5 years ago on a Friday night in March, 2002?

 

[steviey]

The clip is here. He first repeats the question word for word. You do that to buy time when you're trying to make something up.

My link

 

[Dragons]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

Pretty sure he was talking specifically about the victims in the grand jury case, including the unidentified victim that McQueary witnessed.The problem with that (unidentified victim) is that they can bring almost any boy forward now that he ever showered with (and who knows how many that could be) to say it was him in the shower that night and no rape happened.

I also thought it was very interesting that he was able to recall a lot of very specific detail of that shower incident, but very few details of the conversation he had with the one victim's mother.

Exactly - and doesn't that seem obvious to other people reading this thread? Just seems like such an incredibly weak defense attempt, and one that any halfway competent prosecutor would shoot holes in as soon as it was presented.

If they do actually get victim #2 to testify for Sandusky, Id guess that he confirms the same date, time, etc as McQueary and so on.

Isn't that all available in the grand jury report?

 

[Kenny Powers]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

Pretty sure he was talking specifically about the victims in the grand jury case, including the unidentified victim that McQueary witnessed.The problem with that (unidentified victim) is that they can bring almost any boy forward now that he ever showered with (and who knows how many that could be) to say it was him in the shower that night and no rape happened.

I also thought it was very interesting that he was able to recall a lot of very specific detail of that shower incident, but very few details of the conversation he had with the one victim's mother.

Exactly - and doesn't that seem obvious to other people reading this thread? Just seems like such an incredibly weak defense attempt, and one that any halfway competent prosecutor would shoot holes in as soon as it was presented.

If they do actually get victim #2 to testify for Sandusky, Id guess that he confirms the same date, time, etc as McQueary and so on.

Isn't that all available in the grand jury report?

Apparently, since others are saying that. I thought it was just a friday march 2002. Im starting to think I remember reading 9:30PM now but I dont remember an exact date.Either way, I dont think theyre just going to bring some random kid in if they do actually have victim 2 testify.

 

[CrossEyed]

Interesting that his attorney seemed to suggest that at least some of the victims will testify that nothing inappropriate occurred. Wouldn't they have to commit perjury to do that?

Didn't see the interview; was he really saying one or more of the 8 victims in the grand jury presentment would testify? Or that Second Mile kids who spent time with Sandusky would take the stand. Because the latter will be easy to find. He interacted with hundreds (thousands?) of kids over 30+ years.

Pretty sure he was talking specifically about the victims in the grand jury case, including the unidentified victim that McQueary witnessed.The problem with that (unidentified victim) is that they can bring almost any boy forward now that he ever showered with (and who knows how many that could be) to say it was him in the shower that night and no rape happened.

I also thought it was very interesting that he was able to recall a lot of very specific detail of that shower incident, but very few details of the conversation he had with the one victim's mother.

Exactly - and doesn't that seem obvious to other people reading this thread? Just seems like such an incredibly weak defense attempt, and one that any halfway competent prosecutor would shoot holes in as soon as it was presented.

If they do actually get victim #2 to testify for Sandusky, Id guess that he confirms the same date, time, etc as McQueary and so on.

That guy is 19 now. He's going to be rock solid with certainty on where he was 9.5 years ago on a Friday night in March, 2002?

Well Jerry sure seemed to be able to recall a lot of the details.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Apparently, since others are saying that. I thought it was just a friday march 2002. Im starting to think I remember reading 9:30PM now but I dont remember an exact date.Either way, I dont think theyre just going to bring some random kid in if they do actually have victim 2 testify.

Friday March 1st, 2002 around 9:30pm in the football locker room according to McQueary.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Sandusky going to be interviewed by Bob Costas on Rock Center tonight: 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

Why on earth is this guy talking to the press?

It will go something like this...Costas - So Jerry are you a pedophile?

Sandusky - No, I am not a pedophile. I loved those kids, and maybe I shouldn't have showered with them, or touched their knees, but at no time did I have sex with those kids.

Costas - Ok, thanks Jerry

OMG ESPN just had breaking news that was almost word for word what I stated. Pedophile and and guilty of plagiarism?

Congrats you think just like a pedophile.

 

[shadyridr]

Apparently, since others are saying that. I thought it was just a friday march 2002. Im starting to think I remember reading 9:30PM now but I dont remember an exact date.Either way, I dont think theyre just going to bring some random kid in if they do actually have victim 2 testify.

Friday March 1st, 2002 around 9:30pm in the football locker room according to a 22 year old McQueary.

fixed

 

[Zegras11]

question was "are you sexually attracted to young boys?"he first said "sexually?" then paused a bit and said "No, not sexually."It was kind of a weird answer.

His voice was beyond creepy.

 

[shuke]

All he feels bad about is showering with them. He doesn't think the fallout at Penn State was his fault. He really stumbled when Costas asked him directly 'Are you sexually attracted to young boys?'He finally said no, but said he was attracted to young people (referring to caring about their lives, futures). Really reminds me of Michael Jacksons statements about how he slept in bed with kids and just loved them. Same kinda creepy vibe.

Needless to say, I believe nothing that this guy states at this point, but I didnt think he stumbled on saying he isnt attracted to boys. He stumbled on trying to substantiate as to why he "liked" kids so much, but I didnt think the sexual part was stumbled on. Not like he was asked some softball questions here either.

He absolutely had difficulty answering the question.

 

[Raider Nation]

We're wasting keystrokes trying to break down his answers.

OF COURSE he's lying....

 

[CrossEyed]

Ex-Coach Denies Charges Amid New AccusationsSTATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Close to 10 additional suspected victims have come forward to the authorities since the arrest of the former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky on Nov. 5 on 40 counts of sexually abusing young boys, according to people close to the investigation. The police are working to confirm the new allegations.The news of additional accusations came on a day when Sandusky made his first extended public comments since his arrest, and the resignation of the chief executive of the Second Mile foundation, the charity founded by Sandusky, was made public. They were the latest developments in a case that has led to the ouster of several top university officials, including the football coach, Joe Paterno, and the president, Graham B. Spanier.In a phone interview with Bob Costas that was broadcast Monday night on “Rock Center,” Sandusky said he was innocent of the charges against him and declared that he was not a pedophile. He did acknowledge, “I shouldn’t have showered with those kids.”“I could say that I have done some of those things,” he said of the accusations against him. “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.”He added: “I enjoy being around children. I enjoy their enthusiasm. I just have a good time with them.”For many years, that enthusiasm took public form in his work with the Second Mile, a charity to benefit needy children that Sandusky started in 1977. On Sunday, Jack Raykovitz, the chief executive of the foundation for 28 years, resigned. Raykovitz’s failure to do more to stop Sandusky has been a focal point of criticism.The Pennsylvania attorney general has said that Sandusky used the Second Mile to prey on young boys and that he met each of the eight boys mentioned in the grand jury report through the foundation.Raykovitz was reportedly informed by the Penn State athletic director Tim Curley about a 2002 assault in which Sandusky is suspected of raping a young boy in a shower at Penn State’s football facility. Curley also advised Raykovitz that Sandusky was prohibited from bringing children onto the university’s campus from that point.Sandusky resigned from daily involvement with the Second Mile last fall, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family.Raykovitz, who is a licensed psychologist, said in a statement last week that Penn State officials had told him only that the graduate assistant who witnessed the attack was “uncomfortable” with seeing a young boy shower with Sandusky. That graduate assistant has since been identified as a current Penn State assistant, Mike McQueary, who has been placed on leave.“I hope that my resignation brings with it the beginning of that restoration of faith in the community of volunteers and staff that, along with the children and families we serve, are the Second Mile,” Raykovitz said in a statement released by the Second Mile.In announcing Raykovitz’s resignation, which was accepted Sunday, the Second Mile also said that it would conduct an internal investigation to assess its policies, procedures and processes, and to make recommendations regarding the organization’s future operations.The vice chairman of the organization, David Woodle, will be in charge of the Second Mile’s day-to day operations.Raykovitz made $132,923 from the Second Mile during the calendar year that ended Aug. 31, 2010, according to its tax forms.In addition to the firings of Paterno and Spanier, the scandal led Curley and Gary Schultz, the vice president for finance and business, to step down last week. Both men have been charged with perjury and failure to report to the authorities what they knew about the allegations involving Sandusky, Penn State’s defensive coordinator from 1977 to 1999.Also Monday, the Big Ten announced that Paterno’s name would be removed from its championship trophy for football. It will now be called the Stagg Championship Trophy, after Amos Alonzo Stagg.The Second Mile has sought to help needy children across the state through various programs, but its suspected role in the case against Sandusky and its close relationship with the university are now being scrutinized.The Second Mile also announced that Archer & Greiner, including Lynne M. Abraham, a partner at the firm, would become the organization’s general counsel, replacing Wendell V. Courtney, who resigned last week. Courtney had served as Penn State’s counsel before he said he started representing the Second Mile in 2009.While none of the suspected incidents involving Sandusky and the eight boys mentioned in the grand jury report had reportedly taken place at Second Mile programs, the organization said, that “does not change the fact that the alleged sexual abuse involved Second Mile program children, nor does it lessen the terrible impact of sexual abuse on its victims.”Jo Becker reported from Harrisburg, Pa.

 

[General Malaise]

Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.

link?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.

OMG. Hadn't seen that yet; so a 17 y.o. girl comes to him for an emancipation petition (e.g., to gain independence from her parents), and what does he do? Sleeps with her. What a guy.Predator defending a predator.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.

link?

My linkOh, and age of consent in PA is 16. So there's that.

 

[Joe Summer]

Apologies if this is old news:

McQueary clarifies the 2002 incident: "I didn't just turn and run...I made sure it stopped"