Is there any chance that Sandusky is found not guilty?

[monstro]

@Marley23

B), at least, does not matter. They’re not arguing that he did it and he’s not guilty because he has a personality disorder. They’re arguing that he didn’t do it and (I presume) the personality disorder could explain some of his other bizarre behavior. Not the kids-fucking part, but the love letters and gifts and hugs and showering and dire threats.

See, if I were on the jury, the possibility that he has a PD would actually make me lean towards him being guilty rather than not. People with cluster B’s have problems with impulsivity. Why should I believe that he would do everything SHORT of what’s illegal? That’s like thinking a bear licked around the edges of a beehive without dipping his paw in for honey. The urges–and the pain that comes from not fulfilling those urges–are much stronger when the object of desire is constantly within arms reach. It would require unusual restraint not to give in. Almost by definition, people with HPD lack restraint.

The fact that he went on TV unlawyered makes me think the guy is quite the attention-whore–another hallmark of HPD.

[Guinastasia]

@jtgain

I guess it’s like pulling your goalie at the end of a hockey game when you are trailing. It’s extremely risky and likely to hurt you more, but if you are losing anyways, what can it hurt?

True, but like I said, have you seen or read this guy’s interviews? He is one of the stupidest motherfuckers alive.

[Nars_Glinley]

I think he went to the Michael Jackson School of Interview Self-Incrimination.

[Magiver]

What can his defense lawyer say at this point other than to plead insanity.

[Palo_Verde]

@Guinastasia

True, but like I said, have you seen or read this guy’s interviews? He is one of the stupidest motherfuckers alive.

I haven’t. Can you link to the stupidest?

[Guinastasia]

@Palo_Verde

I haven’t. Can you link to the stupidest?

The big one would be the Bob Costas interview.

[Ambivalid]

@Guinastasia

The big one would be the Bob Costas interview.

The video in your link has been removed.

[Lobohan]

“Your honor, if the paper towel tube doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”

[Guinastasia]

Sorry about that – here it is on youtube. The link I gave does contain the most damning part, however.

[Lobohan]

@Marley23

In the interest of not making everybody puke, let’s move on.

Oh, I didn’t see that, sorry for my post above.

[Kobal2]

@BrainGlutton

That argument, if accepted, would make it physically impossible for any adult man to bugger a boy, and I doubt even Starving Artist believes that. It’s like saying, “Rape is impossible because a woman with her skirt up can run faster than a man with his pants down.”

Well, I did mention it was an insane argument.
I didn’t mean ho-ho-how-zany insane, I meant sitting-on-your-front-lawn-naked-apart-from-an-adult-diaper-woven-out-of-pubic-hair, furiously-masturbating-with-a-handful-of-barbed-wire-while-idly-chewing-on-a-severed-human-hand insane. Sorry for any confusion that may or may not have arisen.
The mental image is on me, BTW.

(@Marley23: my insincere apologies for deliberately going against the moderation - I just couldn’t resist the alluring come-hither gleam of The Gallows Funny. Do feel free to vanish this post and/or issue a formal warning if I’m over the line. I’m going to shut up now.)

[MsRobyn]

Now that the prosecution has presented almost all of its case, the best Sandusky and Amendola can do is damage control. Unfortunately, Sandusky’s behavior and Amendola’s failure to control his client will make it very difficult to justify mitigation.

And, of course, Penn State is going to wind up having to defend against a bunch of lawsuits, and there may well be political spillover for the Guv. Too many people knew too much about Sandusky’s activities and tried to hide it to protect him.

It’s not looking good for too many people.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

I suppose Starving Artist’s arguments are a new variation on Johnnie Cochran’s “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” defence.

[Guinastasia]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I suppose Starving Artist’s arguments are a new variation on Johnnie Cochran’s “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” defence.

Considering the nature of his argument, please don’t say that.

[BrainGlutton]

@MsRobyn

Now that the prosecution has presented almost all of its case, the best Sandusky and Amendola can do is damage control. Unfortunately, Sandusky’s behavior and Amendola’s failure to control his client will make it very difficult to justify mitigation.

And, of course, Penn State is going to wind up having to defend against a bunch of lawsuits, and there may well be political spillover for the Guv. Too many people knew too much about Sandusky’s activities and tried to hide it to protect him.

It’s not looking good for too many people.

Dammit, don’t you understand?! A winning football team sometimes requires sacrifices!

[Magiver]

@MsRobyn

Now that the prosecution has presented almost all of its case, the best Sandusky and Amendola can do is damage control.

Damage control. That actually made me laugh out loud. the only way he could make it worse would be to dissect a live puppy in front of the jury. My guess is that he’s fucked in the ass and will never see the light of day given his age.

[Lobohan]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I suppose Starving Artist’s arguments are a new variation on Johnnie Cochran’s “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” defence.

I made that exact joke like five posts ago!

[mister_nyx]

@Lobohan

I made that exact joke like five posts ago!

You did indeed.

[BrainGlutton]

@Magiver

Damage control. That actually made me laugh out loud. the only way he could make it worse would be to dissect a live puppy in front of the jury. My guess is that he’s fucked in the ass . . .

Not yet, but he’d better take several jars of vaseline with him to the Big House.

[The_Man_In_Black]

@Marley23

In the interest of not making everybody puke, let’s move on.

Random question, and I know this is not the place but… If it is known and accepted that Starving Artist’s comments are disgusting to the point where a moderator tells people not to talk about it, why was he allowed to continue to make those comments and not given a warning for them?