Author: has written 5285 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

64 Responses

  1. Glass
    Glass December 16, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

    I read the indictment and would have to say his defense team is full of it.

    ***TRIGGER WARNING ON THE LINK BELOW***
    *** NO, SERIOUSLY, HUGE TRIGGER WARNING***

    http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf

  2. KO
    KO December 16, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

    I love the little bit at the end of the article where his lawyer gets all, “Waah, sometimes innocent people seem guilty and guilty people seem innocent! How are we ever supposed to know the difference?!” Um, based on the (piles and piles of) evidence against this disgusting, predatory waste of space?

  3. PeggyLuWho
    PeggyLuWho December 16, 2011 at 3:15 pm |

    Jesus Fuckballs! Are you fucking kidding me?

  4. Emma
    Emma December 16, 2011 at 3:17 pm |

    I want to know about this guy that said he saw him do something wrong why did he not go in there and stop it or he is just as guilty as the other.

  5. igglanova
    igglanova December 16, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

    ………………..

    *slow blink*

  6. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub December 16, 2011 at 3:19 pm |

    His attorney is notorious for attacking (alleged) victims of sexual assault. So brace yourself for more of this foolishness.

  7. Xeginy
    Xeginy December 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm |

    Juvenile delinquents don’t know how to shower? What kind of…WHAT???

  8. Florence
    Florence December 16, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

    So actually this is another example of Sandusky’s charity and generosity. I see.

  9. auditorydamage
    auditorydamage December 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

    Really? They’re really going to run with this argument?

    Between this and the Bob Costas interview, I have no clue what his lawyers are up to. Amendola’s a real piece of work himself.

    I simply can’t concoct a possible chain of rational decisions and valid logic that leads to statements like the subject of this post, among other things.

  10. Drahill
    Drahill December 16, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

    Even IF we can swallow that some of these children lacked basic hygiene skills and needed instruction to shower, HOW in the holy hell does that translate to “Here, you get naked, and I’ll get naked, and I”ll take the soap and suds you up?”

    Wait – when this theory falls about, they’re going to fall back on the famous “I tripped and fell and my penis just made involuntary contact with that boy.”

    I understand that lawyers have an ethic duty to present the most vigorous defense possible (I know, I went to law school), but at some point, shouldn’t there be a line where society and the justice system can put up a hand and say “Stop”?

  11. zuul
    zuul December 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm |

    I’m prefacing this with the statement that I think that, in Sandusky’s case, this is total bullcrap. That’s a really ridiculous excuse to use in the face of what he’s been charged with. Suuuuure he was teaching them proper hygiene. And I’m the tooth fairy.

    That said, the idea that at-risk and poor children might need assistance in learning basic hygiene is NOT bullcrap. This happened with my father’s first two children, who were given to the mother after their divorce. Said mother remarried an abusive man, used the child support on drugs instead of her children (including the new ones with said abusive man) – my siblings definitely fell into the poor and at-risk group. Their mother never taught them to brush their teeth – they never had it drilled into them that it was necessary until they were ten and fourteen, when they came to visit us for the summer (two boys). I’m sure there were other basic hygiene skills she never taught them, this was just the one I know of.

    I know that particular story is anecdotal, but on top of that, anyone who’s lived in areas with high poverty, or attended schools in areas with high poverty, has probably sat next to people on the bus or next to them in classrooms and strongly suspected that person never bathed. I know I did, all through middle and high school. Obviously I never asked them if they didn’t know how to use soap, but given what happened to my half-siblings, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this weren’t in fact a common issue.

  12. Tim
    Tim December 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm |

    This just made me feel like throwing up. No, I mean really, physically, not just a figure of speech but real vomiting. There just aren’t that many things that can do that.

    I know everybody is entitled to a defense, but there are times when the defense just seems like further criminal victimization of the victims. They are going to stop at nothing, and I’m afraid that so much money shoveled at defense attorneys may sway the jury to reasonable doubt.

    We are starting to need trigger warnings for our trigger warnings.

  13. Drahill
    Drahill December 16, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

    Xeginy: Juvenile delinquents don’t know how to shower? What kind of… WHAT???

    Note the implied victim-blame and smear here – they are juvenile delinquints. Technically, I don’t even know if this is true. Deliquent basically means you’re been arrested as a juvenile for something, tried, and adjudicated delinquient. It’s the kiddie version of being found guilty. Do all these boys have criminal records (I honestly don’t know) or is this just a lawyer trying to smear victims? Somehow, I will bet on the second one.

  14. shfree
    shfree December 16, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

    That is just adds insult to huge, monstrous injury. Because they are “delinquents” or “troubled” they don’t know how to wash themselves. For fuck’s sake, they live in filth, too?

  15. EG
    EG December 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm |

    It’s true, the only way to teach somebody to clean themselves is to strip down and jump in the shower with them. That’s totally how I’ve taught children in my care to wash themselves.

  16. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin December 16, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

    Next I bet they say that the actual molestation was teaching poor kids how to be sexual, because poor people don’t know how to have sex. I mean, how do you know how to perform in bed unless an wise, older, wealthier man shows you first?

    Calming down now.

  17. DonnaL
    DonnaL December 16, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

    EG: It’s true, the only way to teach somebody to clean themselves is to strip down and jump in the shower with them. That’s totally how I’ve taught children in my care to wash themselves.

    Hey, you teach people by example! It was probably how he taught football techniques, so why not washing techniques? And after you’re done with the lesson, what’s wrong with “horsing around” a little? All work and no play, right?

  18. Xeginy
    Xeginy December 16, 2011 at 4:16 pm |

    zuul:
    I know that particular story is anecdotal, but on top of that, anyone who’s lived in areas with high poverty, or attended schools in areas with high poverty, has probably sat next to people on the bus or next to them in classrooms and strongly suspected that person never bathed. I know I did, all through middle and high school.

    I don’t think it’s uncommon in our society to associate body odor with “unclean.” When in reality, these people could simply not be wearing deodorant or perfume/cologne. When I stopped using deodorant, I found that after showering in the morning, it didn’t take long for me start smelling like b.o. Especially riding the bus and walking everywhere, I was bound to start sweating eventually.

    I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I think suggesting that some poor people, or poor teenagers, don’t know basic hygiene might be another way of saying, “I don’t like how you smell and/or look, so in my infinite wisdom as your obvious superior, it is obviously because you lack proper hygiene skills, not because I want to pretend that body odor or bad breath don’t exist.”

  19. Conuly
    Conuly December 16, 2011 at 4:16 pm |

    Even if it were true that these particular kids had no idea of personal hygiene, at their ages the whole process could have been easily demonstrated WITH CLOTHES ON.

  20. Tim
    Tim December 16, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

    (TW for mention of rape and incest child sex abuse) I clicked on that link to the original story, and one of the comments, obviously made sarcastically, made me remember something. The comment was to the effect that rapists could just claim that they were trying to teach the person about “the birds and the bees” (a dopey expression, but that’s another discusson).

    I have a relative who is a social worker of many years, working a lot with abused kids, and having to testify in court. She can be very caustic about defense attorneys. And of course she takes confidentiality very seriously but will sometimes relate snippets that won’t identify anybody. It was a story about being in court. And there was a lawyer who asked her, “well, isn’t it normal and even a sign of love and concern that a father would want to talk to his daughter about sex?” And she answered, “not in the middle of the night while he is sitting nude on the edge of her bed.”

    So, no, the attorneys will not stop at anything. And that was kind of a funny story about an unfunny thing, at least the way she told it as an example of a skeevy lawyer.

  21. Rodeo
    Rodeo December 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

    but at some point, shouldn’t there be a line where society and the justice system can put up a hand and say “Stop”?

    No. That line should not exist.

  22. Drahill
    Drahill December 16, 2011 at 4:23 pm |

    Rodeo: No. That line should not exist.

    Care to elaborate, or do you think your initial answer of “no” is fully sufficient?

  23. Thomas MacAulay Millar
    Thomas MacAulay Millar December 16, 2011 at 4:24 pm |

    Given the evidence, Sandusky has two choices: plead guilty, or come up with an absurd story. The prosecutors are probably telling him that the best deal he will get is to plead to the charges as indicted, and serve what amounts to a life sentence. So he is left with the absurd defense option. The standard is not even marginal believability, it’s just “more believable than any other available bullshit.” That means he has already realized that he has to concede that he was in the shower with pubescent boys, rather than try to argue that he was never there, and McQueary and the kids have been brainwashed or bribed by agents of a rival football program.

  24. Thomas MacAulay Millar
    Thomas MacAulay Millar December 16, 2011 at 4:27 pm |

    Drahill, the people who put up their hand and say “stop” are the judge, and the jury. The judge will only allow the defense to argue from facts actually in evidence, and will only admit what is proper under the rules of evidence. The jury will ultimately decide if the prosecution’s burden has been met.

  25. EG
    EG December 16, 2011 at 4:28 pm |

    Thomas MacAulay Millar: The standard is not even marginal believability, it’s just “more believable than any other available bullshit.”

    Indeed. Which is how you get defense attorneys arguing that ladies totally bruise their cervices while showering, so it’s not actually evidence that this cop raped her. Personally, I think attorneys should show a little moral backbone in refusing to do shit like this, but money is a powerful motivator.

  26. PeggyLuWho
    PeggyLuWho December 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm |

    zuul – Junkies tend to have poor parenting skills, regardless of whether they’re rich or poor.

  27. auditorydamage
    auditorydamage December 16, 2011 at 4:33 pm |

    @23

    I’m not even sure why his lawyers aren’t really pushing for a deal. Even allowing for the odds of having 12 really gullible people on a jury (it happens), I just don’t see an acquittal being possible if stuff like this is their defence argument. Hung jury *maybe*, but then the state gets another crack at him.

    There are enough inexplicable decisions to make me wonder if someone involved is greedy, utterly irrational, or what external and hitherto publicly unknwon factors are influencing Sandusky’s decision to fight the charges.

  28. Drahill
    Drahill December 16, 2011 at 4:34 pm |

    Thomas MacAulay Millar: Drahill,thepeoplewhoputuptheirhandandsay“stop”arethejudge,andthejury.Thejudgewillonlyallowthedefensetoarguefromfactsactuallyinevidence,andwillonlyadmitwhatisproperundertherulesofevidence.Thejurywillultimatelydecideiftheprosecution’sburdenhasbeenmet.

    Thomas, I’m not arguing about facts. I’m talking about making arguments that have no basis in fact, science, logic or whatever else. I’m remembering the NYC rape cop trial – the prosecution presented evidence that the woman had pretty substantial bruising internally on her cervix. The defense attorney got up and said, with a straight face “she did the bruising to herself through ‘vigorous showering and scrubbing.'” So, basically, they argued that the woman had inserted a showering implement into herself and rammed her own cervix with enough force to cause bruising. I get tired of sitting in court (I work in the system) and hear rape-apoligism reinforced, misogyny celebrated and victim-blaming at every turn. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a society that will say “you will not make an argument that reinforces ideas, excuses or ideologies that have no place in our society.” And personally, I’d like to see rape-apologism thrown out of our courts.

  29. auditorydamage
    auditorydamage December 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

    @28

    Remind me – was the trial of those cops a jury trial, or the judge alone? I may have to lower my estimation of the odds of twelve semi-random people accepting a flimsy argument enough to develop reasonable doubt.

    Privilege check: I also need to account for the pervasive influence of rape apology culture on any given individual in the set, and the set as a whole. The verdict in the NYC cops’ rape trial still leaves me furious, though.

  30. Rodeo
    Rodeo December 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm |

    Everyone-all citizens, all non-citizens, all undocumented residents-accused by the state of a crime must have a right to solidly defend themselves against that accusation.

    I would even argue that this is ESPECIALLY true for the rare but genuine monsters like Sandusky. If the state can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandusky did all this, then something is wrong with the state.

    That someone who went to law school in order to navigate the process by which people receive justice doesn’t seem to agree/believe that is a bit worrisome.

  31. Brian
    Brian December 16, 2011 at 5:08 pm |

    @AuditoryDamage

    If the prosecutor isn’t interested in a deal, this might be the best way to try to pressure them into one. Public outrage at revictimization, lengthy expensive trial, whatnot.

  32. Megalodon
    Megalodon December 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm |

    The attorney has since tried to backpedal from his comments, claiming he was only speaking hypothetically.

    In a statement released Thursday, Rominger said he was proposing “one hypothetical” and not saying “Sandusky showered with youths and touched them inappropriately for the purpose of teaching them to shower.”

    “I am not suggesting that this is what happened in this case, but was answering questions about possible motivations an individual might have for an adult to shower with a juvenile,” Rominger said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky/?hpt=hp_t1

    With defense attorneys like these, who needs the prosecutors?

  33. groggette
    groggette December 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm |

    From the Grand Jury pdf glass linked to in the first comment:

    Victim 7 had no had contact with Sandusky for nearly two years but was contacted by Sandusky and seperately by Sandusky’s wife and another Sandusky friend in the weeks prior to Victim 7’s appearance before the Grand Jury.

    Awesome, first he ruin’s these kids’ childhoods and now he and his family and friends are trying to intimidate them when he’s finally being held accountable.
    So much fucking rage right now.

  34. Thomas MacAulay Millar
    Thomas MacAulay Millar December 16, 2011 at 5:35 pm |

    Drahill, I agree with that. Judges should not be permitting complete whole-cloth nonsense unsupported by the evidence. And the system is tremendously biased to rape apology, though ultimately I think this is a problem of juries that will refuse to convict even when the prosecutors and judges act appropriately. All of the parts of the system — police, prosecutors, judges and juries — are parts of a rape culture, and I don’t know how to have a system that isn’t rape apologist to the core in a society that is rape apologist to the core. I’ve written at some length on this, but radical suggestions sure piss people off.

  35. Sandy
    Sandy December 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm |

    Jesus christ. Really?

    “BUT HOW WILL WE EXPLAIN THE SHOWERING?” “THEYRE STUPID DELINQUENTS, WE’LL JUST SAY THEY DIDNT KNOW HOW TO WASH, LOL.”

    I’m sure it will only get more nauseating with time and trial. I can’t imagine how, but I’ve no doubt it will.

  36. Annaleigh
    Annaleigh December 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |

    God. So goddamn nauseating.

    This makes me think of two different things: #1, after 11 years participating in the survivorsphere, all of the times I’ve heard CSA survivors say that their abusers started things off by telling the child that the abuser was going to teach the child about sex.

    And the other, things, I could swear that a few years ago a politician talked about starting a school where poor kids could learn hygiene among other things. I’m seeing some clues that it might have been Newt Gingrich but right now The Google is only bringing up pages about Sandusky, and pages about Gingrich and child labor laws…

  37. Drahill
    Drahill December 16, 2011 at 7:26 pm |

    Rodeo: I think that it’s very clear from your comment that you 1.) have never experienced rape or sexual assault, 2.) probably don’t know anyone (at least anyone who would admit it to you) that has, and 3.) you’ve never sat in a courtroom when a rape or sexual assault cross was going on. I have all 3. Now, you probably already know this, but lemme run it down for you –

    1.) We currently have a system in which a majority of sexual assaults are never even reported. Out of the ones that are, a minority result in convictions. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes in this nation. One of the reasons why is because victims do not want to subject themselves to a cross examination in which their sexual history will be laid out, their virginity will be discussed, their grooming habits will be laid out, their dress will be dissected, their vices will be uncovered, ect. (and if you do not believe this happens, I’d suggest you locate your local courthouse, take a day off from work, and go watch some trials). The statistics will tell you – the system we have right now is not working for rape and sexual assault victims.

    Now, you clearly embrace the definition of “vigorous defense” to mean “my lawyer can say absolutely anything even if it is defamatory, impossible in the face of science or based upon hideous sexist/racist/ect. stereotypes.” And rest assured, there are plenty of people who think just like you. I, on the other hand, have a different viewpoint. Making an argument that has its basis in rape culture and victim-blaming perpetuates it. It makes the argument that this excuse is VALID. When a defense attorney asks a victim what he/she was wearing, that argument’s subtext is that if the victim was dressed a certain way, their dress signaled that they wanted to have sex. I don’t think I would need to explain why that argument is bunk on a feminist website.

    If we want a society free of rape culture, it needs to be eradicated everywhere – our classrooms, our churches, and yes, I know this will blow your mind, but our COURTROOMS too. As long as it can pervade there, it can reach anywhere – since the courts are supposed to be the vanguards of the law. That a poster on a feminist website can’t see that if frankly what I find worrisome.

  38. Rodeo
    Rodeo December 16, 2011 at 8:27 pm |

    I re-read what you originally wrote, and it came off as fairly ambiguous. I was responding to the idea that certain people are not entitled to a strong defense, but apparently you were trying to say that lawyers shouldn’t posit claims that are contrary to how people live their lives.

  39. Drahill
    Drahill December 16, 2011 at 9:18 pm |

    What I was initially saying was that a vigorous defense should not be read to “a defense at any cost even if the defense is patently offensive and impossible.” I would like to see, at some point, a judicial system that puts its foot down and says “we will not permit arguments (from either side) that further beliefs that rape is sometimes acceptable / that clothing can lead to rape / that a victim can “ask for it” / ect. Arguments grounded in rape apologism, to me, can be barred from a courtroom without violating the command for a strong defense.

  40. DonnaL
    DonnaL December 16, 2011 at 9:25 pm |

    Drahill: a vigorous defense should not be read to “a defense at any cost even if the defense is patently offensive and impossible.” I would like to see, at some point, a judicial system that puts its foot down and says “we will not permit arguments (from either side) that further beliefs that rape is sometimes acceptable / that clothing can lead to rape / that a victim can “ask for it” / ect. Arguments grounded in rape apologism, to me, can be barred from a courtroom without violating the command for a strong defense.

    Yes. Some defenses to charges of rape and sexual assault are so devoid of any factual support, and so clearly designed to character assassinate the complainant/victim, that they should simply be precluded. They have nothing remotely to do with any kind of “search for truth.” Just as the “gay panic” and “trans panic” defenses to certain other types of crimes should be outlawed for analogous reasons.

  41. superior olive
    superior olive December 16, 2011 at 10:48 pm |

    Annaleigh: And the other, things, I could swear that a few years ago a politician talked about starting a school where poor kids could learn hygiene among other things.

    I don’t remember who or where–I want to say New York? Massachusetts? somewhere in the northeast?–but might you be thinking of the guy who proposed that welfare recipients be housed in jails? I think it was to be along with their children, too, and it would be so lovely and so luxurious for them because they would have toilets and showers. Or maybe it was a gym and showers. But it was definitely showers that this guy thought they would get a kick out of.

    And really, sometimes disadvantaged kids do have poor hygiene. But it’s not rocket science, you just explain how to soap, shampoo, maybe condition, I don’t know, throw some deodourant in there, and then leave them alone to have a nice hot shower. Between this and that school that had “make out with your parent whilst blindfolded” Prank Day (apparently it’s a thing there! that they’ve done a previous pep rallies! do it all the time! go tigers, or whatever!) I’ve basically been constantly having the heebie jeebies. And showering/gargling. Is that irony? I can never tell.

  42. Tim
    Tim December 17, 2011 at 1:26 am |

    @Drahill (mostly; I’m not going to use the quote feature because it runs everything together and your passage was too long to put all the spaces back in) Anyway, you make an excellent point that the court should not be obligated to allow in just any defense. In fact, doesn’t this happen all the time, with the judge telling the defense, “I will not allow you to bring up this or that issue in court; you may not even bring it up or mention it.” It seems they have no trouble at all doing this in government national-security cases, for example. I can’t come up with good examples off the top of my head right now, and I’m not talking about classified information, but ruling out a whole basis or argument of defense, often unfairly. But when it comes to rape defense, anything goes.

  43. LotusBen
    LotusBen December 17, 2011 at 2:46 am |

    I don’t know–not to be too callous, but I more find this funny than anything. It’s pretty classic when something simultaneously illustrates how big a sham rape culture, the American “justice” system, the media, and Jerry Sandusky’s life all are.

  44. karak
    karak December 17, 2011 at 4:00 am |

    That said, the idea that at-risk and poor children might need assistance in learning basic hygiene is NOT bullcrap

    I agree with you. Zuul, and that’s what makes the thing so much worse, in a way. There ARE kids that were never shown how to properly bathe and care for themselves, either out of neglect or poverty so profound they never had basic amenities like soap, doedorant, clean clothes, or toothbrushes. I used to know these kids, we played together at recess and my mom would let them take home my sparkly kiddy toothpaste.

    Also, I know plenty of rich kids that don’t know how to properly bathe, feed, dress, and clean up after themselves, because they’re so sickeningly coddled, so, yeah, anyone can have issues with this shit.

    The compassion and tact needed to help kids like is immense, and it doesn’t involve fucking showering with them. Like… no.

  45. StevenAttewell
    StevenAttewell December 17, 2011 at 4:05 am |

    Not being a lawyer, these interviews make me nervous that the Sandusky strategy is to take a dive then win an inadequate counsel appeal.

    Because in line with the discussion about “say anything” defense tactics, there are those that work, in part because they’re an unspoken proffer of legitimization for the jury’s prejudices, but these don’t even rise to the level of that kind of sleaze.

    These interviews/excuses do the opposite, they make the defendant look even guiltier than people already think he is. And it’s not just a once-off, but repeated and incredibly public.

    So for the lawyers out there, please ease my mind and tell me that there’s no way such a strategy would work.

  46. Thomas MacAulay Millar
    Thomas MacAulay Millar December 17, 2011 at 8:15 am |

    Steve, that doesn’t work. Conscious, bad defense decisions do not get convictions reversed.

  47. FashionablyEvil
    FashionablyEvil December 17, 2011 at 8:33 am |

    I don’t remember who or where–I want to say New York? Massachusetts? somewhere in the northeast?–but might you be thinking of the guy who proposed that welfare recipients be housed in jails?

    You’re thinking of Carl Paladino, one time Republican candidate for governor of New York.

  48. Angie unduplicated
    Angie unduplicated December 17, 2011 at 8:37 am |

    I’m Appalachian and have some really poor cousins who literally had never seem a shower until junior high gym class. Their classmates taught them to use the newfangled contraption, without handling the packages, playing the flute, or dropping the soap. Despite their poverty, they were versed in hygiene skills, from hand carrying water to the galvanized washtub or washing in the river in summer. Sandusky and his lawyer are slime.

  49. Tim
    Tim December 17, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

    Thomas MacAulay Millar:
    Steve, that doesn’t work. Conscious, bad defense decisions do not get convictions reversed.

    I’m not a lawyer, so … but I wish I had as much confidence that his conviction is going to be such a slam dunk as some people seem to think. I wonder if the “gaffe” of bringing up this defense idea in public really was a gaffe or a deliberate, crafted “slip,” a sort of trial balloon to test what the reaction would be. Because I actually can picture people who might buy this. Remember, this is a “beloved coach” in a culture where college football is practically a religion. And there are these dirty, poor, delinquent boys — they won’t call them that of course, just try to give the impression of some vague deliquency. So maybe the coach, or Coach as some of them might think of him, was just trying to be a good guy and used poor judgment.

    It will go on and on. Weren’t some or most of maybe all of the mothers single parents for one reason or another? So you know they must be dirty, slutty women and the defense team will be digging into their sex lives and relationships and every time they so much as had a drink with a man in a bar or farted in church for that matter, and god help any of them who are lesbians. This defense team has virtually unlimited money to hire investigators and dig up stuff. And a lot of potential jurors will want to believe he didn’t do it. I’m afraid it’s going to be very ugly and I think they could plant reasonable doubt and at least get hung juries.

  50. EG
    EG December 17, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

    auditorydamage: Remind me – was the trial of those cops a jury trial, or the judge alone? I may have to lower my estimation of the odds of twelve semi-random people accepting a flimsy argument enough to develop reasonable doubt.

    It was a jury trial. And jurors gave interviews saying things like “If she hadn’t put herself in that situation, nothing would’ve ever happened.” They are scum, the jurors, the defense attorneys, and the cops, and I hope they die slowly and painfully.

  51. superior olive
    superior olive December 17, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

    FashionablyEvil: You’re thinking of Carl Paladino, one time Republican candidate for governor of New York.

    Yeah, that guy! Thanks for the memory jog, I wasn’t having any luck googling “welfare + jail + shower” or any combo I could think of.

  52. Claire
    Claire December 17, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

    To put it politely, Sandusky is a disgusting, immoral person, and this weak argument for his behavior is absurd.

  53. krissthesexyatheist
    krissthesexyatheist December 17, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

    No.

  54. iiii
    iiii December 17, 2011 at 5:09 pm |

    Give a jury in a rape trial an excuse to nullify, and odds are they will. My guess is that Sandusky’s lawyers were trying to suss out whether Sandusky’s juror pool were going to treat this as a standard rape trial, or if things like evidence, law, and common sense would rule the day. And I’m going to call it a bad move on the part od Sandusky’s lawyers, because they’ve given the “raping children is bad” side an opportunity to sneer at their ridiculous excuses in advance and generally predispose the juror pool against nullifying in this case.

    Wasn’t there a rape trial not too long ago in which the judge forbade the prosecution and complaining witness from using the word “rape” to describe the events in question? Can that kind of micromanagement be applied to the defense?

  55. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie December 17, 2011 at 6:33 pm |

    I would even argue that this is ESPECIALLY true for the rare but genuine monsters like Sandusky.

    Rodeo, monsters like Sandusky are anything but “rare.” Sexual assault and rape – of children, women, gay men, and trans- men and women – is practically blood sport in our society.

  56. SJ
    SJ December 17, 2011 at 11:36 pm |

    This is the worst thing I’ve read all day.

    Bloody hell. Trying to not froth at the mouth with rage.

  57. Marksman2010
    Marksman2010 December 18, 2011 at 3:45 am |

    Is a jury involved?

    If so, this BS may work for the defense.

    Remember OJ…

  58. Rodeo
    Rodeo December 18, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

    OJ was acquitted because the cop planted evidence, thereby preventing the prosecution from proving their claim and creating reasonable doubt.

  59. Azalea
    Azalea December 19, 2011 at 12:13 am |

    Rodeo:
    Everyone-allcitizens,allnon-citizens,allundocumentedresidents-accusedbythestateofacrimemusthavearighttosolidlydefendthemselvesagainstthataccusation.

    IwouldevenarguethatthisisESPECIALLYtruefortherarebutgenuinemonsterslikeSandusky.Ifthestatecan’tprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatSanduskydidallthis,thensomethingiswrongwiththestate.

    Thatsomeonewhowenttolawschoolinordertonavigatetheprocessbywhichpeoplereceivejusticedoesn’tseemtoagree/believethatisabitworrisome.

    Yeah the state has McQueary as a key witness. This man was cetain he saw a rape until pople (and I’ll admit to one of them) being really fucking pissed that he SAW a child being raped and did and said nothing to stop it and make sure the child was in a safe place *away* from his rapist. Well after some people started threatening him, he came out and said he made sure it stopped before he left (Sandusky and the rape victim) alone to go home to tell his own father about what he saw. People called bullshit on him again, why would you leave a child alone with someone you just saw raping him or her? NOW he is saying he doesn;t know what he saw but he’s “certain” it was sexual in nature.

    The state needs the janitors who saw Sandusky in action, they need McQueary to get his story straight and they need 12 jurors who aren’t going to sit there and allow some bullshit story about teaching these boys how to shower prevent this monster from going to jail. They still have the word of the victims.

  60. Henry
    Henry December 19, 2011 at 3:54 am |

    The poor delinquent (in that case “welfare”) kid crap worked wonders for Michael Jackson. Victims often don’t get justice in our system unless they are the right type of victim – good middle class kids whose parents do all the right things. People forget it is entirely possible to be a victim, even if you yourself are not “perfect” in the eyes of society. Just ask all the dead hookers in Long Island (whose cases were never investigated for ages), or the at risk kids MJ imported to his ranch for some wine and overnight stays. It never ceases to amaze me at what we will believe when the victim is not one of the annointed classes.

  61. Bitter Scribe
    Bitter Scribe December 19, 2011 at 3:19 pm |

    Where in the name of God does Sandusky find these lawyers? First the guy who thought it would be a good idea for him to do a live interview with Bob Costas (and sat in the studio while it took place), and now this one. Do these people actually have degrees and licenses?

  62. Katya
    Katya December 19, 2011 at 4:46 pm |

    I know that particular story is anecdotal, but on top of that, anyone who’s lived in areas with high poverty, or attended schools in areas with high poverty, has probably sat next to people on the bus or next to them in classrooms and strongly suspected that person never bathed. I know I did, all through middle and high school.

    Part of this, of course, is that teenagers often smell. Bad. They just do–their hormones are jumping all over the place, they are oozing oil from every pore, and they have stinky sweat. Add that to bathing less than daily and wearing tee shirts that you picked up off the floor, and teens can get truly rank. I would guess that most teens get some hygiene instruction from their parents; if they don’t, then yes, some other adult probably needs to step in, but I’m fairly certain that such instruction can be done without nudity of any kind.

    Frankly, I think his lawyers are basically admitting that Sandusky is guilty, with excuses like this.

  63. just saying
    just saying December 22, 2011 at 9:57 pm |

    Poor people on welfare may not be able to afford deodorant. I heard a joke once, “did you hear about the welfare mother in drug store? She bought deodorant and shampoo.” See it was a joke by a friend who was on welfare. Back when you could actually be in college on welfare with your kids were enough to stay by them selves.

    ” In 1992, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186.6 In that year, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572; ”
    so I cannot find this year but I know it has decreased.

    Those kids are smelly because they are POOR. Because products are expensive and maybe they could only buy soap. And yes, they did see you nose turn up. The deodorant I found on amazon started at $8. You got an extra ten bucks when your annual income is $4,572? You think they don’t want to smell nice? And wear nice clean clothes, not clothes washed in the laundromat without soap? How bout just given them some damn toiletries?

    Some of them are smelly because they are neglected and abused. Yes because mom doesn’t care. That is true. But I think those of us on the Internet with free time to play around on blogs, well we are not that poor. It seems like some people have never even met poor.

  64. LatinaFatale
    LatinaFatale January 5, 2012 at 12:21 am |

    This story just continues to be beyond disgusting-(

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.