News | Penn State

BigGayDeal.com

Former Penn State Coach Jerry Sandusky Tells Bob Costas He's Innocent: VIDEO

Costas

Bob Costas grilled former Penn State Assistant Coach Jerry Sandusky about the sexual abuse charges against him in Sandusky's first interview since the scandal broke. Sandusky denies all of them, insists he was innocent and was just "horsing around".

"I could say I have done some of those things," he said. "I have horsed around with kids I have showered (with) after workouts. I have hugged them, and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact."

Listen to the astonishing interview, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Who approved this interview? He does not sound innocent. He sounds old and confused and sorry that he got caught but innocent...
    not so much.

    Posted by: Gigi | Nov 15, 2011 8:00:06 AM


  2. Every person is innocent until proven guilty. It's the basic tenet of our society. Let the law takes its course and let the facts reveal themselves.

    Posted by: jason | Nov 15, 2011 8:07:09 AM


  3. I could hardly listen to this interview. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear the way this man speaks!

    Posted by: John | Nov 15, 2011 8:07:48 AM


  4. Could it be that the accusers are seeking to get back at Sandusky for reasons other than sexual abuse? I just wonder how much of this may be the product of not liking the guy and hence seeking ways to get back at him. Perhaps there's a financial motive on the part of the accusers?

    As with anything, we need to keep an open mind until the law has dealt with it. Let the legal process decide.

    Posted by: jason | Nov 15, 2011 8:18:17 AM


  5. Regardless of motive, as an adult working with young people you don't allow yourself to be put in situations which unecessarily compromise you personally--i.e. showering with children alone. IMO this man had too much unchecked authority over this kids--something we hear far too often about the pedophile priests who parents trusted their children to without question.

    I had this same argument with others during the Michael Jackson trial. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, it was inappropriate for a grown man to be sleeping in the same bed with other people's children.

    If you put yourself in those situations, don't be surprised if you have to deal with the unfortunate consequences.

    Posted by: Mark | Nov 15, 2011 8:33:24 AM


  6. I wonder what people would think of me if I took a shower with a ten year old? Let's cut through the rhetoric and look at the basic scenario. What kind of man does that?

    Posted by: Jack M | Nov 15, 2011 8:53:19 AM


  7. Ever so typical of "Json" to come to jerry Sandusky's defense.

    After all Jerry Sandusky is a "REAL MAN" a "SPORTS HERO" -- not some fluffy queen who "acts like a woman."

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 15, 2011 8:56:22 AM


  8. I find it exceedingly strange that people so quickly jump to "innocent until proven guilty" in these situations. That presumption is one in a court of law, and one I happen to agree with, but its not actually the case that it's a basic tenet of our society that informed people can't make judgments before a jury renders a verdict. So, ummm... yeah, he's guilty. That assessment would make me a bad jury, but not a bad American.

    Posted by: prcm | Nov 15, 2011 9:13:29 AM


  9. "I should not have showered with those boys" has the same hollow rings as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and "I have never been inappropriate with anybody."

    Posted by: Brian | Nov 15, 2011 9:23:07 AM


  10. Jason, only a sick person could listen to that interview and think, "Sure, sounds reasonable to me!"

    Posted by: Gregoire | Nov 15, 2011 9:28:31 AM


  11. "I have hugged them, and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact."

    Did this take place in the shower? Why would he be touching their legs, in any context?

    After listening to him talk, he sounds like a closeted self-loathing gay man who was acting out on his deeply repressed sexuality. (For the record, I'm not implying that men that rape boys are gay. Most of the time they aren't. But in this case, I think he is gay and he took advantage of these boys to deal with his homosexuality.)

    Posted by: David in Houston | Nov 15, 2011 9:46:33 AM


  12. Apparently, there was a witness to Sandusky sexually abusing a 10 year old boy in the shower. He's clearly in denial. That said, had the victims been females, would the right wing republican bigots and media have lambasted him, including NOM, AFA and others as well as denigrated his hetero orientation? I think not.

    Posted by: Robert in NYC | Nov 15, 2011 9:47:25 AM


  13. According to grand jury testimony two separate witnesses observed Sandusky having sex with a child, both times IIRC in the Penn State showers or locker room. There's McQueary, the coaching assistant who called his father and notified Paterno the day after seeing Sandusky sodomizing a 10 year old in the showers (so the report was immediately after the event even if nothing was done about it). Then there's the janitor who saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a child. He told the other janitors about what he'd seen at that time but apparently not his supervisor or anyone in the football program.

    Sandusky is lying through his teeth.

    Posted by: Caliban | Nov 15, 2011 9:50:05 AM


  14. This scenario is so disturbing, and I can't help but time and again hear the ghost of Michael Jackson in this man's voice. I know I shouldn't go there, but I hear and feel such close similarities that's extremely disturbing.

    Posted by: fivefathoms | Nov 15, 2011 9:59:00 AM


  15. This was a disgusting piece of television journalism. It brought no new information to light; it gave Sandusky and his team a national mouthpiece to proclaim his innocence and seed doubt about his guilt. It is up to a court of law to prove guilt, and he is "innocent" in the eyes of the law until then. But, NBC news is not a court of a law, and in deciding to run this piece, they blatantly ignore the obvious facts contained in the grand jury indictment: there were two, separate, eye-witness accounts of child rape, not "molestation", and 6 other victim claims of sexual misconduct.
    Why give this scumbag a chance to speak at all, especially since he has nothing to add to the information already known? He clearly sat down with his attorney, decided the only legaly route that would prevent him from dying in a prison was to declare his innocence, and will logically run with this defense. THIS IS NOT NEWS! Nor is it news that the defense attorney "truly believes" his client is innocent. What else would he say on national TV? Bob Costas and NBC should be ashamed.

    Posted by: Dave | Nov 15, 2011 10:38:13 AM


  16. 40 counts by the grand jury, multiple eye witness accounts, multiple accusers, multiple victims - 8 reported thus far...

    There's much more to this story!

    Posted by: Fred | Nov 15, 2011 10:41:06 AM


  17. Bob Costas is finally looking older.

    Posted by: anon | Nov 15, 2011 10:46:17 AM


  18. Bob Costas' rug and make-up should be illegal.

    The presumption should be one of innocence, not guilt (for Sandusky, not Costas).

    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/156-432.htm

    Posted by: Kevin | Nov 15, 2011 11:10:46 AM


  19. No. No I will not "Listen to the astonishing interview" but thanks anyway. This case and the years it took to address it are beyond evil and tragic.

    Posted by: Donny with a "D" | Nov 15, 2011 11:18:26 AM


  20. None of you people even know exactly what is in the grand jury report. Furthermore, one of the two supposed eyewitnesses--McQueary--is now claiming that he "broke up" the supposed intercourse between Sandusky and the 10-year-old he was supposedly raping. Changing his story, perhaps, due to the unfavorable publicity that HE got from people saying that he should have acted to stop Sandusky?

    You have to be suspicious of someone who changes their story in any case like this, particularly when it is strictly a "He said, he said" situation.

    Let's also not forget that the motives of the parents may not be particularly savory--many of them obviously have a financial motive in all this--they could collect millions from Penn State in civil suits if they win.

    I personally find it almost impossible to believe that not only Joe Paterno, but the Athletics Director, and two other higher-ups knew about this and did nothing, instead choosing to cover it all up. One or two maybe, but all four? No way.

    There is a lot we don't know and those of you seeking to hang the guy before he has even gotten a fair hearing obviously have an unsavory agenda of your own......

    Posted by: Rick | Nov 15, 2011 11:29:08 AM


  21. Today (in the media and internet), you are guilty till proven innocent.
    With that said, he does sound guilty.

    Posted by: Rob West | Nov 15, 2011 11:30:14 AM


  22. I also wish the term Evil were not being used, started with Bush and the evil doers, sounds like the Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials.

    Posted by: Rob West | Nov 15, 2011 11:35:06 AM


  23. I get the feeling from a lot of these comments (just like so many online posts) that people comment without reading the article or watching the video in its entirety. Please watch this video in its entirety before offering your two cents, guys.

    Rick, while we don't know what's in the grand jury report, we can pass judgment on how Sandusky handled himself in this interview, and that speaks LOUDLY.

    Posted by: Jay | Nov 15, 2011 11:51:54 AM


  24. The grand jury report is widely available on-line and has been for some time.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 15, 2011 12:07:25 PM


  25. Why am I not surprised that RICK is once again annoying the heck out of me...

    The grand jury report is available in PDF form online. Just google Sandusky grand jury report. Easy enough to read the whole, sordid mess.

    What Sandusky ADMITS to was inappropriate and constitutes, according to legal experts, misdemeanors at the very least. One can read a transcript of the interview as well, but I'd suggest listening to him. He pauses as he tries to address the question about sexual attraction, and phrases his response in a way that indicates how he is drawn to - attracted to - young people. Pedophiles often don't see what they do as abuse. They believe that they are in a relationship with their victim.

    If RICK can't see how wrong on so many levels it is or a 50+ year-old man to have the kind of contact HE ADMITS TO with 10 year-old boys, then "unsavory" is the least of descriptors I would choose for him.

    Posted by: TJ | Nov 15, 2011 12:15:01 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Police Raid Zuccotti Park, Evict 'Occupy Wall Street' Protesters: VIDEOS« «