They are really reaching with this one.

It's a very common thing to say "dial 1-800-WHATEVERISPERTINENTTOTHESITUATION." If people actually think that the lawyer KNEW this was a gay sex line, they're nuts.

The fact that news outlets have even reported this made me roll my eyes. I don't know this lawyer (I haven't been playing close attention to this story recently), but folks seem to be taking the focus off Sandusky and keep going to those around him.

Sandusky was smiling in all of the footage I saw yesterday. As I recall from an old Maddox post, that's a sure sign of a pedo.

Fair enough.

It just irks me when the person who SHOULD be getting the heat (Sandusky) take a back seat to any- and everyone surrounding him/her.

I guess I can attribute it to the 24-hour news cycle (outlets need SOMETHING to fill columns), but it doesn't make me roll my eyes any less.

LOL

I was just LOLing at use of that particular phrase. This is one of those situations where everything is a double entendre.

So now one of Sandusky's adopted children is claiming that Sandusky sexually abused him.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

The CNN report on this ^^ indicates that the man making that claim was willing / planning to testify for the prosecution.

Is it just me, or does it seem this case just keeps getting creepier and creepier?

It is seemingly getting creepier. I also think it is getting more sick by the day too but that is just me.

You want creepy?

http://deadspin.com/5919340/did-jerr...bc-never-aired

Also, where the hell is Johnny Cochrane?

Dead.

Oh, no, now I feel bad for saying that. Okay, Dershowitz!

Found guilty on 45 counts, not guilty on 3

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...6&pos=breaking

DaffyKD

Good!

Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but that trial seems to have gone by remarkably fast.

I think it did, too. Plus, the fact that the jury released their verdict just before 10 pm on a Friday night? I don't ever remember that happening. It's like they thought, "he's guilty...let's get this over with and go home."

I think it was because there was not a lot of rebuttal from the defense, the defense had less witnesses I think(?), and Pervert Man didn't take the stand in his own defense like his lawyer said he would in opening arguments.

Because if he had, the Commonwealth would have called the adopted son as a rebuttal witness. No one knew about his claims when the trial started and when the defense attorney said Sandusky would take the stand.

This is the part of the law that I like and learned from SVU. Something about "opening the door."

No defense lawyer in his right mind would have put Sandusky on the stand.

The Soup played a clip in which a legal expert said that Sandusky "shot his wad" by doing the Bob Costas interview. EXTREMELY unfortunate choice of words, but very correct.

On another note, I think the repainting of murals is ridiculous. If they (they = the college and the townspeople) had learned ANYTHING from this case, they would let the mural stand as it was, to remind them that just because you contribute in one spectrum that it doesn't make you perfect or above the law. Painting it over with a woman who no one will remember in 3 weeks who she is teaches NOTHING.

There were some parts of the Costas interview that didn't air, and those were even worse than the parts that did.

I think the guy is guilty as sin, and obviously so did the jury, but it's an interesting thought exercise to speculate on what would have happened with a really good defense lawyer.

Well, that's another theory that's going around....that the defense lawyer is purposely doing really stupid shit so the verdict can get thrown out on grounds of assy lawyering, or whatever the correct terminology is.

I don't think there is any chance of that. Sandusky chose and paid for his own lawyer, and I think that ineffective council is almost always someone appointed by the state. Further, Joe did more than the bare minimum a lawyer must do.

That happens a lot though doesn't it? Where the original plan is to have the defendant take the stand in their defense, but after testimony a change of plans for whatever reason is needed?

Yes, for thousands of reasons - good and bad. For example, if you're pretty certain the State failed to prove its case, you would almost never put the defendant on the stand, since they could presumably only screw things up.

Right. But it points up the risks in telling the jury that they will hear from the defendant.

Very true ... which is why you should spend the money to hire Not A Family Friend/Not Lawyerin' Joe Amandola (h/t Deadspin), so this sort of day-1 stuff doesn't fall through the cracks.

Awwww... poor old man isn't happy with his prison accomodations. Boo-friggin'-hoo.

Sandusky Seeks Less Harsh Prison Setting

If he really thinks he would be safe in general pop, he is absolutely bat shit crazy.

I've heard many times that child predators get beat down the most in prisons, especially since there are many former victims of abuse in the prison. Not sure if I could find stats to back that up, but I've heard this generalization a lot.