Are you sexually attracted to under age boys?

[sabach]

Umm, umm, let me get back to you on that.

Here's a hint that he is guilty. When I am examining a witness, I know they are lying when they use the phrase, "I don't recall." Witnesses say "I don't recall" in an effort to refuse to answer a question when the truth is damaging. Sandusky knows exactly what he told that mother who confronted him. Costas had him, so he said "I don't recall what I said" because he knows the mother was wired and there is a transcript of the conversation which the grand jury saw.

Secondly, McQuery is the only witness who does not stand to gain by his testimony. In fact, his recitation of the facts actually paints him in a negative light, which even bolsters the credibility of his testimony.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

The answer is based upon the statutes, I am sure. Presumably the law states that the acts must have been done for sexual gratification to be a sex crime vs an assault

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[Ernj]

He showed signs of deception when answering almost all questions: slowly repeating the questions before giving an answer, giving an answer unrelated to the question, "I don't recall", etc. The answer he gave about what was seen in the shower was completely assinine as if this was the first time he thought about coming up with a story about the incident.

I can't believe his lawyer allowed this interview to happen on national TV. It should have been pretty obvious what kind of questions would be asked and I can't believe the lawyer did not at least coach him on what kind of responses he should give. Seems as though this interview will only make the lawyers job much harder come trial.

 

[ljmilman]

If anyone didn't see this, the lawyer according to The Daily has had his own share of issues involving sexual contact with those much younger than he.

 

[Noexcuse]

If anyone didn't see this, the lawyer according to The Daily has had his own share of issues involving sexual contact with those much younger than he.

Wow, there are some bizarre things happening down there.

 

[JoeCollege]

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought it was telling/interesting when Sandusky said something along the lines of "I never touched a boy with the intention of sex". Something along the lines of trying to wiggle out vis a vis "intent" struck me as creepy, like he's going to argue, "well, it just happened". Sounds like something that the NAMBLA guys on SVU would say.

 

[ImperialOrange]

He probably isn't. Most sexual predators think it's a power thing not a sex thing.

This guy did all this stuff and it doesn't sound like he thinks he did anything wrong.

 

[ljmilman]

Just a thought...

If Sandusky had said in that interview "Yes, I find myself sexually attracted to young boys," wouldn't that have been a somewhat better move than admitting he showered with them but trying to deny sexual intent? I mean, I'd tend to think he could argue that a person doesn't consciously choose who they are sexually attracted to more easily than he could argue that his alleged actions weren't with sexual intent.

I don't know if that is the case, and it certainly doesn't make his actions any less vile, but wouldn't that have been ever so slightly more defensible for his lawyer?

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

They can't help themselves. That is the real problem and why reportinf is so important. After breathing and nourishment sex is the number one drive. It is hugely difficult to bury that drive. That is why after 1998 those who covered it up are just as responsible, if not more so.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[All4SU]

Just a thought...

If Sandusky had said in that interview "Yes, I find myself sexually attracted to young boys," wouldn't that have been a somewhat better move than admitting he showered with them but trying to deny sexual intent? I mean, I'd tend to think he could argue that a person doesn't consciously choose who they are sexually attracted to more easily than he could argue that his alleged actions weren't with sexual intent.

I don't know if that is the case, and it certainly doesn't make his actions any less vile, but wouldn't that have been ever so slightly more defensible for his lawyer?

I don't really think so. He's trying to portray himself as a fun-loving guy, who just likes things like showering with boys. Any sexually-related touching was purely accidental -- it will probably be his claim that the boy moved, when he was trying to touch his leg. It's all a farce. He can't deny everything, so he is denying that what was seen was actually what it was. If he claims to be sexually attracted to boys, that claim will be much more difficult to make.

 

[Cuseregular]

They can't help themselves. Capt. Tuttle said, "That is the real problem and why reportinf is so important. After breathing and nourishment sex is the number one drive. It is hugely difficult to bury that drive. That is why after 1998 those who covered it up are just as responsible, if not more so."

You're right on that and furthermore there is no such thing as effective rehab either. Most people think these are nad based behaviors when in point of fact they're brain based. No rehab for them. As a crude analogy, we had our male dog neutered young and the damn guy is still always humping our female with regularity, not to mention Fairfaxcuses leg when he comes over. Point being the drive is in the brain and any attempt to rehab the brain will likely be fruitless and neutering them useless.

Everyone understands how you can have a bad heart, liver, kidney, etc. but harder to grasp is the reality of a bad brain from a combo of nature/nurture and/or brain trauma. He literally cannot grasp he's done wrong and diseased, these whacks brains functionally work different than normal peoples much like a schizophrenics on the one end of severity or a narcissist on the other end. Don't waste your time trying to get through to them, rather just stay away from them and/or minimize time spent with them.

 

[Mark Joe]

This pedo needs to be tortured... jail is too good for him and would allow him more free reign in the showers w/ men above his age limit

Where is Lorena when ya need her

 

[All4SU]

Point being the drive is in the brain and any attempt to rehab the brain will likely be fruitless and neutering them useless.

 

[Cuseregular]

Yeah no doubt and as an add on how bout the way he hesitated in answering the question before painstakingly and creepily finally saying no. He goes on first about how much he enjoys the company of little kids. What a schmuck. Any normal person in response to that question is coming back with an immediate, "NO, What are you kidding me and come closer so I can smack you upside the head!"

 

[BlazeOrange]

Just a thought...

If Sandusky had said in that interview "Yes, I find myself sexually attracted to young boys," wouldn't that have been a somewhat better move than admitting he showered with them but trying to deny sexual intent? I mean, I'd tend to think he could argue that a person doesn't consciously choose who they are sexually attracted to more easily than he could argue that his alleged actions weren't with sexual intent.

I don't know if that is the case, and it certainly doesn't make his actions any less vile, but wouldn't that have been ever so slightly more defensible for his lawyer?

I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt that many plea bargains take place in child molestation cases due to the likely public outcry against D.A.'s who would go easy on the perverts. Especially in a case with multiple (and increasing) charges and witnesses. So their only choice is to go all-in on the not guilty claim.

The problem here is anyone who is falsely accused of these crimes would want to strongly deny them as publicly as possible and, as they discussed on Mike & Mike this morning, as a sports figure you can't get much more public than a Costas interview. So they have to make a statement to try to plant some sort of doubt. Not a bad idea in theory, but there are incriminating details (showing with kids) that they can't deny and need to rationalize somehow. Having Sandusky located remotely didn't help - whether true or not, the transmission delays in a phone interview would already
make it seem like he was making measured responses, plus the audience couldn't "look him in the eye" as he answered. If his lawyer could make into the same room with Costas, I don't see any reason why Sandusky couldn't. If he has travel restrictions with his bail, I'm sure Costas would've been willing to come to him.

His lawyer should also be bringing up the Duke lax case every chance he gets as an example of someone who was wrongly crucified based on initial reports. Although they were no angels, they were innocent of the worst charges against them.

 

[pfister1]

They can't help themselves. That is the real problem and why reportinf is so important. After breathing and nourishment sex is the number one drive. It is hugely difficult to bury that drive. That is why after 1998 those who covered it up are just as responsible, if not more so.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

Someone should tell my wife that.

 

[ljmilman]

All4SU and BlazeOrange: Fair enough. It just seems as though admitting to some sexual preference that he may or may not have control over would be easier for some to grasp than the idea that showering and touching boys wasn't with sexual intent.

Either way, the guy is obviously disturbed.

 

[NKR1978]

He probably isn't. Most sexual predators think it's a power thing not a sex thing.

This guy did all this stuff and it doesn't sound like he thinks he did anything wrong.

Is this true for pedophiles as well? I thought this applied to rapists with adult victims.



Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[ImperialOrange]

Is this true for pedophiles as well? I thought this applied to rapists with adult victims.

Honestly not sure. Anyone here a psych major? Not sure if the profile for either would be that dramatically different or not but would be curious to know. I think both feel they are "entitled" to what they are doing to the victim because they're mentally disturbed.

Also curious if Sandusky is a psychopath or a sociopath. I think he's a sociopath from what I recall reading long ago but I'm no more than someone with a general interest in psychology that's taken a few classes along the way. Regardless, he shouldn't be on the streets.

 

[NKR1978]

Honestly not sure. Anyone here a psych major? Not sure if the profile for either would be that dramatically different or not but would be curious to know. I think both feel they are "entitled" to what they are doing to the victim because they're mentally disturbed.

Also curious if Sandusky is a psychopath or a sociopath. I think he's a sociopath from what I recall reading long ago but I'm no more than someone with a general interest in psychology that's taken a few classes along the way. Regardless, he shouldn't be on the streets.

I'd be interested to know as well. I agree he seems like a sociopath. It's been a long time since I've taken a psych course.

 

[TinyManInside]

Psycho vs. Socio

Reading through this, it would seem to me that Sandusky is psychopathic in that his actions were/are clearly more premeditated and organized that what one would suspect from a sociopath. But there seems to be a lot of 'gray area'/overlap between the two classes of anti-social behavior.

Mason

 

[ImperialOrange]

Psycho vs. Socio

Reading through this, it would seem to me that Sandusky is psychopathic in that his actions were/are clearly more premeditated and organized that what one would suspect from a sociopath. But there seems to be a lot of 'gray area'/overlap between the two classes of anti-social behavior.

Mason

Appreciate the insight. Seems the basis is premedatated vs not, nature vs nurture, and being indifferent in targets vs selectively choosing those they don't care about.

So if he planned all of this, was genetically defective from birth, and did crimes indiscriminately he would be a pyschopath.

If he just did these as crimes of opportunity, was sexually abused himself or witnessed it earlier in life, and didn't hurt those close to him then he would be a sociopath as far as i can tell.

Will be interesting to see all the facts laid out, but the fact that daddy ran a boys home makes you wonder. If he didn't hurt his own children then I'd still think sociopath.

 

[SU2NASA]

Somebody needs to post this as a poll on the Penn State board.

 

[dash-30-dash]

phister, take it from me, your wife knows. Wink, wink. As for the anwer to that question, the only one who should say yes are young girls.

 

[TinyManInside]

Appreciate the insight. Seems the basis is premedatated vs not, nature vs nurture, and being indifferent in targets vs selectively choosing those they don't care about.

So if he planned all of this, was genetically defective from birth, and did crimes indiscriminately he would be a pyschopath.

If he just did these as crimes of opportunity, was sexually abused himself or witnessed it earlier in life, and didn't hurt those close to him then he would be a sociopath as far as i can tell.

Will be interesting to see all the facts laid out, but the fact that daddy ran a boys home makes you wonder. If he didn't hurt his own children then I'd still think sociopath.

It seems to me that Sandusky would be hard to classify, since his alleged behavior has elements that fall into both categories. There is definitely a premeditated nature to it, considering that he founded a charity to satisfy his compulsions. But there are certainly sociopathic elements as well.