Say it ain't so, Joe

[thespleenenator]

There is a great line from Pirates of the Caribbean that fits this scenario perfectly. This is after Jack Sparrow jumps into the ocean to save a drowning Elizabeth Swan. Soon thereafter, he is doing one of his patent escapes but end up getting caught. At gun point, he grabs Elizabeth Swan as a buffer between guns drawn and himself:

Elizabeth Swann: Commodore, I really must protest! Pirate or not, this man saved my life.

James Norrington: One good deed is not enough to save a man from a lifetime of wickedness.

Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.

You decide.

That makes no sense. So Sparrow is saying his one good deed condemned him? Not sure what you're going for there.

At any rate, here's my "decision." The "deed" in question here is a little bit bigger than just being "the one bad thing out 1000 good things" that Paterno did. It's not like Paterno preached the virtue of a clean program only to get caught having knowledge of a booster giving players money. If that were the case, then all the "don't let one slip ruin his legacy" arguments might hold some water. The problem is Paterno's "one bad deed" was turning a blind eye to a football coach who was -ing children. Doing so allowed that football coach to continue to children unabated for another 9 years. That's a pretty significant "one bad deed." There's just no way to look past it.

It was a commentary about our current society. One bad deed is enough to condemn a man who otherwise lived a good life. But the opposite is not true. One good deed is not enough to salvage a man who otherwise lived a bad life.

I don't know how you're not grasping this. It wasn't just one bad thing. It was over a decade of letting a pedophile rape children to save the university. And how do you know he lived a good life? Remember when we thought Jim Tressel was a great man? How do we know JoePa didn't cheat? Just because he didn't get caught, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

[dfwabel]

Sandusky's claiming 100% innocence. "Horsing around" is as much as he'll say, verifies he touched legs, hugged, etc. Denies all sexual charges.

This won't end well for this sick stupid bastard.

Just me or did I hear him say, "I shouldn't have showered with those kids."?

I understand that he would talk to Costas if NBC was paying (to assist his defense fund), but why else say that unless you are trying to taint the jury pool more than the last week already has?

[CS85]

Sandusky's claiming 100% innocence. "Horsing around" is as much as he'll say, verifies he touched legs, hugged, etc. Denies all sexual charges.

This won't end well for this sick stupid bastard.

Just me or did I hear him say, "I shouldn't have showered with those kids."?

I understand that he would talk to Costas if NBC was paying (to assist his defense fund), but why else say that unless you are trying to taint the jury pool more than the last week already has?

It's a desperate move. There's going to be a ton, a TON of misguided tricks and antics to establish a defense for Sandusky. Because the child being raped in the shower was never identified, they could trot out any poor dumb kid willing to take a paycheck and perjure himself to claim he was there and that nothing happened. They'll flood the national media and courtroom with "character witnesses." It's all a facade.

If they think having Sandusky gruffly and half-hazardly lie about his predicament over the evening news will save him, they are gravely mistaken. Trying to cover up 30 years of plundering Second Mile for rape/molestation victims is going to be an impossible act.

The lid will blow off on this one, probably sooner rather than later.

[Mings]

I'm sorry but the only kids you shower/bathe with are your own until they are old enough to handle it themselves.

[infrared41]

Sandusky's claiming 100% innocence. "Horsing around" is as much as he'll say, verifies he touched legs, hugged, etc. Denies all sexual charges.

This won't end well for this sick stupid bastard.

Just me or did I hear him say, "I shouldn't have showered with those kids."?

I understand that he would talk to Costas if NBC was paying (to assist his defense fund), but why else say that unless you are trying to taint the jury pool more than the last week already has?

I saw that quote running across the bottom line on MNF so apparently he did say just that. Gee Jerry, ya think? -ing sicko. Let's say for a minute that maybe nothing did happen. It's still about 9 types of wrong for a 50 year old to be showering with 10 year old kids. Even if nothing happened (and I believe nothing happened about as much as I believe the Browns are going to win the next five Super Bowls) what kind of sick thinks taking showers with kids is a good idea? Sorry Jerry, but that little revelation ain't doing much to help your case.

[CS85]

They should've had a lawyer do the interview instead of Bob Costas. That being said, Costas did a fantastic job. He broke Sandusky down into a muttering stack of crap with intelligent hard hitting questions.

Sandusky's on suicide watch, this can't go on much longer for this guy. We haven't even begun to know what all he did.

[BBTV]

Why on earth would any lawyer allow his client to be interviewed by Bob Costas in this situation?

[CS85]

Why on earth would any lawyer allow his client to be interviewed by Bob Costas in this situation?

You have an attorney who impregnated a 16 year old when he was 49 representing a guy who allegedly raped/molested kids for the better part of the last 20 years or more. They have no case.

And yet they're trying to win the court of public opinion....

wow.

http://deadspin.com/5859530/

^recap of Costas interview

[dfwabel]

They should've had a lawyer do the interview instead of Bob Costas. That being said, Costas did a fantastic job. He broke Sandusky down into a muttering stack of crap with intelligent hard hitting questions.

Sandusky's on suicide watch, this can't go on much longer for this guy. We haven't even begun to know what all he did.

Costas is Top Tire on NBC News/Entertainment/Sports food chain next to Brian Williams, Jay Leno, Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw (in a limited role) and possibly Andrea Mitchell. Honsetly, I do not know who is their Legal person since Dan Abrams left for ABC, and Chris Hansen from "To Catch a Predator" is under his own personal scandal.

[RedSox44]

BREAKING NEWS AS OF A HALF HOUR AGO: ESPN's Tom Rinaldi is reporting that McQueary stopped Sandusky when he saw him in the shower.

Can't link to the report (came via an iPhone notification from the ESPN app), but, if this is true, it's completely changed my perception of McQueary. He actually did something instead of just walking away.

[CS85]

BREAKING NEWS AS OF A HALF HOUR AGO: ESPN's Tom Rinaldi is reporting that McQueary stopped Sandusky when he saw him in the shower.

Can't link to the report (came via an iPhone notification from the ESPN app), but, if this is true, it's completely changed my perception of McQueary. He actually did something instead of just walking away.

Not seeing this anywhere else.

[dfwabel]

BREAKING NEWS AS OF A HALF HOUR AGO: ESPN's Tom Rinaldi is reporting that McQueary stopped Sandusky when he saw him in the shower.

Can't link to the report (came via an iPhone notification from the ESPN app), but, if this is true, it's completely changed my perception of McQueary. He actually did something instead of just walking away.

Basically hearsay. The Grand Jury report does not have any of that, so it is harder to prove. McQueary is just trying to save face from any civil action. The only one who may really know is the child.

[dfwabel]

BREAKING NEWS AS OF A HALF HOUR AGO: ESPN's Tom Rinaldi is reporting that McQueary stopped Sandusky when he saw him in the shower.

Can't link to the report (came via an iPhone notification from the ESPN app), but, if this is true, it's completely changed my perception of McQueary. He actually did something instead of just walking away.

Not seeing this anywhere else.

Detroit Free Press

[NJTank]

I wish Bob Costats and Brian Williams would have said this to Sandusky

"Dude! You have SEX with CHILDREN!"

"I mean, we believe in equal rights and all that gay stuff but, dude, you!"

[Still MIGHTY]

1) Good job by Costas. Jerry Sandusky is a vile, sick, disgusting human being, but why on Earth would he do this interview? He's not saving face, he's not swaying the public. Digusting.

2) If this McQueary report is true, doesn't that mean he basically lied to the Grand Jury? Why would he do that? He's just gotten himself into SOOO much more trouble than if he had said this in the first place.

I hate this whole story in so many ways.

[dfwabel]

I wish Bob Costats and Brian Williams would have said this to Sandusky

"Dude! You have SEX with CHILDREN!"

"I mean, we believe in equal rights and all that gay stuff but, dude, you!"

No comment necessary, just a head shake of (not so-)disappointment or in this case expectation.

[tp49]

Sandusky has a fool for an attorney. There is no way in hell I would ever let a client do something like that especially since this interview could be introduced into evidence by the prosecutor. Second, there is no way this case ever goes to trial. Whatever money he made from this interview will now force a plea. Third, this case never gets heard in court in the State College area a change of venue would definitely be in order if it ever got that far.

As for McQueary a perjury conviction looks wonderful on your record when you're looking for another job...

This is only going to get uglier.

[NJTank]

I know my skin was crawling hearing what Sandusky was saying.

[Saintsfan]

This is an interesting little snippet from the interview

Costas: Until now, we were told that that alleged victim could not be identified.

Lawyer: By the commonwealth.

Costas: You have identified him?

Lawyer: We think we have.

Presumably, given he earlier seems to have a reasonably clear recollection of the event, Sandusky would know who the kid was? And yet his lawyer's answer there seems to suggest a level of uncertainty.

The whole interview is weird. I don't get why Sandusky would agree to it, it was never going to change people's perceptions of him. It does make me wonder if somewhere along the line the Sandusky team is preparing to call 'miss trial' on the whole thing.

[ESTONES6]

There is a great line from Pirates of the Caribbean that fits this scenario perfectly. This is after Jack Sparrow jumps into the ocean to save a drowning Elizabeth Swan. Soon thereafter, he is doing one of his patent escapes but end up getting caught. At gun point, he grabs Elizabeth Swan as a buffer between guns drawn and himself:

Elizabeth Swann: Commodore, I really must protest! Pirate or not, this man saved my life.

James Norrington: One good deed is not enough to save a man from a lifetime of wickedness.

Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.

You decide.

That makes no sense. So Sparrow is saying his one good deed condemned him? Not sure what you're going for there.

At any rate, here's my "decision." The "deed" in question here is a little bit bigger than just being "the one bad thing out 1000 good things" that Paterno did. It's not like Paterno preached the virtue of a clean program only to get caught having knowledge of a booster giving players money. If that were the case, then all the "don't let one slip ruin his legacy" arguments might hold some water. The problem is Paterno's "one bad deed" was turning a blind eye to a football coach who was -ing children. Doing so allowed that football coach to continue to children unabated for another 9 years. That's a pretty significant "one bad deed." There's just no way to look past it.

It was a commentary about our current society. One bad deed is enough to condemn a man who otherwise lived a good life. But the opposite is not true. One good deed is not enough to salvage a man who otherwise lived a bad life.

I don't know how you're not grasping this. It wasn't just one bad thing. It was over a decade of letting a pedophile rape children to save the university. And how do you know he lived a good life? Remember when we thought Jim Tressel was a great man? How do we know JoePa didn't cheat? Just because he didn't get caught, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

There are lots of people supporting Paterno, there are lots of people crying foul with renaming the trophy, with firing Paterno, etc. From what we know, the only bad decision he really made was not reporting this allegation to police. Otherwise, from what we know as fans, JoePa lived a very good life, donating to the library, helping people make good decisions, etc.