OK, you and others have already convicted him. I assume you would approve of a constitutional amendment exempting accused (accused, not convicted) child molesters to be exempt from constitutional protections. Just let our “esteemed” news media determine guilt. When this happens take the accused to an arena and let the mob tear him apart, similar to the ancient Romans.
By the way, the star witness for the prosecution (McQueary) was seemingly caught in a major lie. He claims to have reported the shower incident to the police but they have no record of it.
Are you sexually attracted to young boys?
“I could say that I have done some of those things,” Sandusky said. “I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact,” he said. “Am I sexually attracted to underage boys? Sexually attracted, no — I enjoy young people, I love to be around them ... but no, I am not sexually attracted to young boys,” Sandusky replied to Costas.
I rarely get involved in any commentary of the latest legal “fascination” on FR or anywhere really. Everyone IS assumed innocent, until proven guilty.
In Sandusky’s case, there is no question however, not in the court of public opinion. Have you heard his interview? Not just read it, but heard it? Everyone can know, and should know, from hearing that alone...................he’s a predatory monster.
Absolute idiocy.
The guy's own words convict himself. He didn't seek sex from ALL the kids he “helped”, he explained.
McQueary is not the star witness - the eight kids who came forward were - McQueary was only called to testify AFTER those eight kids came forward.
Now there are ten more kids.
And the guy is saying he didn't seek sex from ALL the kids he “helped”.
I suppose you think OJ is innocent - no need to speak of his probable guilt before the sentence - and absolutely no need to after they found him innocent?