OSU_Buckguy;2036510; said:
now get this:
sandusky's lawyer, joseph amendola, impregnated an underage girl in 1996. he was in his late 40s.
So you're saying he's an upstanding member of the community?
Anyway - Sandusky interview the logic test, not Occam's, but close.
If Sandusky is telling the truth now then he's dumber (and his attorney is dumber) than I thought.
Why?
Because it robs any testimony he might have given on the stand the advantage of immediacy, novelty in trying to convey to jury his proclaimed innocence.
It may help others peripheral to the case (State Penn, Second Mile) but I cannot really see this helping Sandusky at trial. Especially, and particularly when he declines to take the stand in his own defense.
If Sandusky isn't telling the truth then expect another wave of victims (or close encounters, or witnesses) to come forward and bury Sandusky, and / or Penn State / Second Mile.
In other words, we'll know fairly quickly if this was a stupid attempt at PR and spin. We'll know by counting the new complainants, the new witnesses.
As for the "I found the little guy" disclosure by Sandusky's attorney. Anyone want to discount the notion that it is a boy (now grown) who will testify that he was in the shower with Sandusky. But, he actually is not the kid (now grown) who was involved in the incident observed by McQueary?