I agree Eve, but I think it’s a total act of BS. Someone with a mind of ten year old doesn’t get to where he was in his career being carefree and innocent. I think he’s a manipulative bastard who thought he knew how to play the media and the judicial system like he played his victims.
Perhaps there’s something about sports that fosters this mindset in some – people have made the same observation about OJ and I’ve definitely seen it in Sandusky. Like he was used to gliding along on just sports and the rest of the brain atrophied since it wasn’t needed. Or maybe people like that naturally gravitate toward sports.
Mike Wallace used to say that he was always surprised with the number of crooks/shady operators that agreed to be interviewed by “60 Minutes”. Apparently, they thought they could explain away their behavior and people will believe it.
IANAL, of course, but the “legal strategy” I’ve been able to parse out is this:
“If you plead guilty, there’s a 100% chance you’ll go to jail. If you go to trial, however, there’s a non-zero chance that the jury will be a bunch of idiots and let you go. It’s not a good chance, mind you, but it’s a better shot than a guilty plea.”
It is even more than non-zero if he was counting on the Power of Penn State to cut him some slack. Keep in mind, there was some kerfluffle at the start because a number of the jury members had close ties to Penn State. All he needed to do is flip one to his side.
True, but the effect PSU support would have had on the jury pool is unquantifiable, so the odds still stand (or stood) as a “non-zero chance”.
Yes, but depending on how much support he thought he had left the “non-zero” may have inordinately outweighed the guilty plea in his decision. There is a big difference between if you think your non-zero chance is .01% or 95% chance.
One of his lawyer’s said that they had intended to put Sandusky on the stand, but then Sandusky’s adopted son said that he was also molested by Sandusky and the son was prepared to tesify on behalf of the prosecution to refute Sandusky’s testimony. The lawyer said that once this happened, his defense was ruined.
I agree with other that there was no way a plea deal wouldn’t mean Sandusky was going to die in jail, so you might has well go to trial and hope for a miracle.
True, but my point is simply that regardless of the actual odds, non-zero>zero. If that’s the case and you’re guilty as sin, why not roll the dice and go to trial?
Having known a man much like Sandusky, I can say that his basic, deep down belief was that if a thing felt good to him, then it was “Good.” and if a thing was felt bad or even inconvenienced him, it was “Bad” regardless of the effects any of it had on other people.
So if an action caused a lifetime of pain to someone, but it felt good to him for a few minutes, that was an overall “good” in his mind. His life was entirely in the moment, and judged only by the physical sensation he experienced. If other people suffered that was the result of some defect in them, and not his fault.
And he was extremely good at mimicing normal responses and emotions. I wondered for a long time how he reconciled the need for mimcry with his overall actions. Then I realized, the mimcry didn’t feel bad to him, therefore all was good.
My prediction is that to his dying day Sandusky will believe that all those people ganging up on him to send him off to prison was the only “evil” in the situation.
I think the bet he made was that a combination of witness impeachment and embarassment would save him. That some of the young men would be too embarassed to tell the whole story in public, and others had enough problems in their lives that they could be made to look like liars.
This entire post was chilling. I semi-follow the case one, because I’m a PA resident and two because I went to a direct competitor of PSU and I’ve been receiving well-timed Alumni emails asking for money after different pieces of the case are revealed. I wouldn’t be surprised for a moment if the exact same situation arose at my alma mater.
I find it almost impossible to believe his wife wasn’t complicit in the whole ordeal.
OJ got off. Nuf Sed
Well, I asked the question because I assumed Sanduskh would attach some value to not airing his dirty laundry --that’s the “why not”. Some good points made in this thread though, so I see why that assumption may have been way wrong.
But in his case what’s new to air? He’s been splattered on the cover of dozens of magazines and newspapers and people are going to judge his innocence regardless of the jury verdict (just ask OJ), and he’ll never going to get out of jail alive if he does plead guilty.
There’s really nothing to lose and everything to gain by going to trial. If he was so worried about appearances, he wouldn’t be raping kids in gym showers, I would think.
Yeah, good points.
As noted by others, he had nothing to gain in a deal.
Another factor that no one pointed out - unless I missed it - is that while Sandusky is thought to be guilty by 99.9% of the public, there is still that 0.1% who thinks he is innocent. And - most significantly - that 0.1% probably includes the people who are most important to him. His wife, children (other than Matt, obviously) other relatives, close friends etc. If he pleads guilty then he has to admit to all these people that he is a pedophile. If he fights it out, then some significant percentage of these people will stand by him. Counts for a lot.
As with Lindsaybluth, I, too, have a hard time believing the wife was completely clueless. I would say, at best, she was willfully blind. Or maybe Sandusky started on her, and once she was broken, moved on to kids.
Ugh. Why did I have that thought? 
on something like this -
“better to be convicted then admit it”
because at least at that point you can blame others (bad jury, bad lawyer, they just dont understand,etc) and keep (in your own mind anyway, and maybe in the minds of your supporters) some plausible deniability.
Here is a stunning revelation: Matt’s birth Mother had deep concerns about Sandusky, and tried to separate him from Sandusky and “The Second Mile.” Matt burned down a barn and acted out in other ways. The response of the Child Welfare Agency was to take him from his Mother and put him in foster care with Sandusky.
It bears mentioning that almost all Nebraska journalists feel that the Franklin Credit Union child prostitution story was a complete hoax, most likely perpetrated by the disgruntled former state senator who wrote a book about it. I had dinner with that state senator’s niece a few weeks ago; the guy has serious problems.