• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

College Football 2011 Discussion

Crap, Boise lost. Which means they'll be playing in the Eatabagofdicks.com Bowl instead of a BCS game.
 
Stanford lost. Awesome. No more talk of Luck being the be all end all. The kid's good. The kid's real good, but he isn't the Lord Our Saviour. He was getting into Tebow worship territory. Oregon, now they're the real deal.

Man, people are getting on O-State's case for "running up the score" on Texas Tech when the starters didn't play the entire fourth quarter and several more minutes. That amuses me and gets on my nerves at the same time. They ran the ball (with Simms, the backup to Joseph Randle) almost exclusively after Weeden and the O-line was pulled. Chelf only threw three passes. for a quarter and a half. They could have scored 80 or more if Gundy had left Weeden in. Tech just gave up. How do you tell the second string not to try and score? Weeden for the season has numbers almost identical to Luck but he's done it in less quarters played. This isn't the first time he's been pulled early.
 
The one kickoff-return-fumble-return-TD from Oklahoma State reminded me of this:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjTEyzno2K0[/yt]
 
WHAT??? :eek: How the devil did he not recuse himself??? Just how corrupt are the police and judiciary in the state of Pennsylvania? This man wasn't charged in 98 even though the police officer heard Sandusky admit he showered with the boys. He waltzes around campus for 7 years after the 2002 rape; no one does anything. Supposedly the administrators told the administration of The Second Mile about the 2002 incident instead of police. They do nothing. The quarterbacks of both professional football teams are a criminal and a non-charged criminal for dog fighting and an alleged rape of that college girl in Georgia. Now a judge presides over Sandusky's hearing who's a volunteer at the charity Sandusky founded??? The football culture in this state permeates like a toxin. I think the feds need to get involved in this business. Seriously. :wtf:
 
The AG's office is looking competent to handle it, so the Federal government need not yet get involved. It's still state law that has been violated, so it's the judges that are the problem.

It needs to be moved out of Center county (honestly, it needs to be moved out either way because bias in favor or against is more likely).

As for the Judge, I'm going to blame popularly elected Judges. That's something that bugs the hell out of me in Pennsylvania.
 
Jerry Sandusky's attorney is maintaining Sandusky's innocence, specifically referring to the 2002 shower incident (in which Mike McQueary saw Sandusky raping a boy) as Sandusky "horsing around." :barf:
 
Supposedly McQuerry stopped the rape, but there are no details about what he did. I kind of doubt that there'll be any more on this until we get closer to trial time, since McQuerry seems to be the prosecution's star witness.
 
How did Sandusky's attorney think that going on with Bob Costas last night could even remotely help their case? :wtf:

Some "highlights":

BOB COSTAS:
What did happen in the shower the night that Mike McQueary happened upon you and the young boy?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Okay, we-- we were showing and-- and horsing around. And he actually turned all the showers on and was-- actually sliding-- across the-- the floor. And we were-- as I recall possibly like snapping a towel, horseplay.

BOB COSTAS:
How could somebody think they saw something as extreme and shocking as that when it hadn't occurred, and what would possibly be their motivation to fabricate it?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
You'd have to ask them.
BOB COSTAS:
It seems that if all of these accusations are false, you are the unluckiest and most persecuted man that any of us has ever heard about.

BOB COSTAS:
Are you a pedophile?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
No.
BOB COSTAS:
Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?
BOB COSTAS:
Yes.
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys.
BOB COSTAS:
Obviously you're entitled to a presumption of innocence and you'll receive a vigorous defense. On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of information out there and fair-minded common sense people have concluded that you are guilty of monstrous acts. And they are particularly unforgiving with the type of crimes that have been alleged here. And so millions of Americans who didn't know Jerry Sandusky's name until a week ago now regard you not only as a criminal, but I say this I think in a considered way, but as some sort of monster. How do you respond to them?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
And I don't know what I can say or what I could say that would make anybody feel any different now. I would just say that if somehow people could hang out until my attorney has a chance to fight, you know, for my innocence. That's about all I could ask right now. And you know, obviously, it's a huge challenge.

He sure didn't do anything to help his case, appearing on the phone while his attorney was live with Costas.
 
Yeah, supposedly McQueary is now saying he stopped the rape.

McQueary: I didn't fail to act

The very last post in the comments section asked the question that immediately came to my mind, yet no one else asked it, to my shock.

If McQueary stopped the rape--how did the child get home that night? Think that through for a minute and McQueary's bullshit shines through. Sandusky may have pulled out the second he saw that McQueary saw him, but Sandusky couldn't have left with the child if McQueary hadn't run to call his daddy. McQueary, big, tall strong 28 year old former quarterback. Sandusky, then 57 and 30 years removed from his athletic days. No weapon, exhausted from intercourse. Sorry, but McQueary is back peddling. He didn't "make sure" of anything. If he actively intervened, how did the child get home that night? It's all so lurid and tragic.
 
How did Sandusky's attorney think that going on with Bob Costas last night could even remotely help their case? :wtf:

Some "highlights":

There's more:
At one point, about seven minutes into the interview and after Costas asked Sandusky about the 40-count indictment he faces for sexually abusing boys over a 15-year period, and Sandusky replies that he is innocent of those charges, Costas asks Sandusky if he fits the classic MO of a pedophile.

Sandusky's reply at the 19:01:01:00 mark of the interview is perhaps the most damning of the entire session:

"Well -- you might think that," Sandusky said. "I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would -- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and -- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

Freudian slip?
 
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?
BOB COSTAS:
Yes.
JERRY SANDUSKY:
Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people....

This was all sorts of wrong. This should have been a "no, I'm not"
 
Is the attorney trying to taint the jury pool?
Quite the opposite. He knows the court of public opinion has already ruled that Sandusky is guilty. The Costas interview was an effort to try and put some doubt in the minds of those who will actually be in the jury pool.
 
That pathetic interview was supposed to help? How? It didn't. You give an emphatic "no" to "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?" How does it do anything but make it impossible to find an impartial jury in State College? Can the attorney not just request a venue change? That's what I thought was behind it. Tainting the jury pool. What other excuse could there be for allowing such a pathetic interview? Is his attorney mentally challenged? Allowing any interview flies in the face of all legal logic. There has to be some other motive behind it unless the attorney himself is incompetent. Perhaps he is.
 
Last edited:
Just hearing some of the clips today, he didn't do a very good job.
No, he didn't.

I'm more convinced than ever that he's a little-boy-toucher. He did not help his case at all. Listen to the interview. He SOUNDS like Michael Jackson. Not what he's saying, I mean his actual voice. I wonder if maybe there actually was something to the "he's just a big kid" line of defense. I mean, in addition to the inappropriate touching thing. I mean something mentally.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top