Because the original thread was in the Pit, and this is GD, maybe? 
I think a plea bargain would be best for all of us at this point. Jerry isn’t going home, he’s going SOMEPLACE (hopefully GenPop) for the rest of his life, and we can all be spared from the sick, sick testimony.
As far as the trial is concerned, I think the sick sick testimony is probably over unless Sandusky’s lawyer IS truly incompetent. Of course, there’s always the sentencing phase.
I don’t think either side is interested. Sandusky is completely deluded that he’s going to get off (no pun intended), and the charges are so heinous that there’s no way the prosecution is going to cut him a deal.
So, while we’re discussing the Paper Towel Tube defense, what are the odds that Starving admits he was deeply wrong about the whole thing when the conviction does happen?
What kind of plea could they offer Sandusky that he would take? He’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail. If a prosecutor offered any less than that, he will not win re-election, and should not win re-election.
Has he even been back since then?
He’s been around. He last posted a couple of weeks ago, but his profile shows him as being online right now. I don’t think he’s been back to any of the Sandusky threads, though.
In fairness, that thread was about Paterno and how he should have reacted to McQueary’s allegations. It was not, taking the evidence as a whole, whether Sandusky was guilty of anything.
I don’t wish to hijack this thread and re-debate Paterno. We had many, many pages discussing that in the Pit. I wanted to point out the differences in the topic of the two threads.
Offer him unlimited supply of paper towel tubes?
In fairness, the Paper Towel Tube Defense WAS both the subject of my reference AND about Sandusky’s guilt.
Man, I can’t believe that nobody has mentioned the Paper Towel Defense yet.
Personally, I think the defense should be exploring the notion of gradually diminishing credibility of witnesses that are so embroiled in supporting the policies and theories of their supervisors that even against their better judgement they’ll testify to that effect.
The Taper Powell defense.
Brilliant!!
That’d be the big reason, yes. This is also supposed to be a somewhat serious discussion and that was a rambling Pit thread about the failings of Penn State. I was trying to cut Kobal2 some slack for his joke, but I’m serious about not letting this tangent about the Pit thread overwhelm this discussion. If you want to say something about Starving Artist’s comparison, add it to that Pit thread.
If the dick doesn’t fit, you must acquit!
I’ll assume you didn’t see the mod note I posted 15 minutes ago. Last chance: if this keeps up I’m just closing this thread.
The impression I get from media reports is similarly that the trial is not going well for the defense. But IMHO, it’s hard to get an accurate sense of how well it’s going from media reports, which tend to focus on the most sensational aspects of the testimony.
Media reports of the defense are generally buried in the reports of the trial, but I gather that the defense has made the following points in cross-examination:
[ul]
[li]Many of the victims admit having changed and enhanced their stories over the years (including revising their initial reports to police)[/li][li]Some of the victims admit that parts of their testimony are “recovered” memories[/li][li]Many of the victims have maintained friendly contact with Sandusky until very recently[/li][li]Some or many of the victims have hired civil lawyers and intend to use their testimony[/li][/ul]to sue for big bucks
Whether this all adds up to enough for Sandusky to walk is hard to say. I would tend to doubt it, but it’s hard to say based on media reports, as above.
In any event, I don’t know if it’s fair to say that the defense is completely incompetant. They took on a case in which there is a lot of evidence against the defendant. It doesn’t look all that different than most other defenses in such cases, to me.
See e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/18/sandusky-could-take-stand-as-trial-second-week-turns-to-defense-case/?test=latestnews penultimate paragraph. (I’m not sure what “at least six” means - I thought there were only six victims testifying.)
A couple other former coaches testified today that they also showered with young boys. I fail to see how this makes Sandusy’s actions Ok.
In other Jerry Sandusky news, there is apparently more to theCostas interviewthan was initially aired. Supposedly it makes Sandusky look even worse, which seems impossible. The story was somewhat unclear, so I’m not sure if the following excerpt is from the unaired portion of the interview or not.
If I’ve heard correctly, Sandusky actually took boys to local hotels sometimes. Not on trips, they were just staying with him at a hotel in town.
If that’s true, I really don’t know how the defense is going to counter that. What possible logical reason, other than sex, are you going to take someone to stay with you at a hotel in town?
Maybe if the defense can produce at least a few boys who had close relationships with Sandusky who say they weren’t abused, then he might have a small chance. However, it sounds like every single boy he brought home, showered with, etc.. has accused him of abuse. How can the defense recover from that? Surely at least one of these boys, if they weren’t abused, would have enough loyalty to Sandusky to tell the truth.