Jerry Sandusky Interview: Penn State Cannot Move Forward Until Sandusky Shuts Up
By taking an interview with Bob Costas, Jerry Sandusky continued to stockpile issues and attention on Penn State, which cannot sit well with the university.
Penn State would surely like to move on from this issue, but Sandusky is seemingly trying to make it impossible. His halfhearted defense was the furthest thing from convincing, as he failed to quickly answer if he was “sexually attracted to young boys.”
Pausing after that question was inexcusable, especially after he admitted to horsing around and hugging boys in the shower. His lawyer, Joe Amendola, is saying they found one of the alleged victims. According to James B. Kelleher and Ernest Scheyder of Reuters.com, the victim’s story will help the defense.
"We believe we've found him and if we have found him, he is telling a very different story than Mike McQueary ... He is saying it never happened."
Why does this need to be publicized?
Yes, Sandusky wants to defend his innocence in the public eye, but he should wait until the trial. By doing so now, he’s only bringing more unnecessary attention to a school that’s been through a lot. Some of the criticism of the school is deserved, but they have done a bit of cleaning out to clear the air on campus.
However, the Sandusky case continues to rear its ugly head, especially when he declares his outright innocence.
The most important witness in the case, Mike McQueary, sent an e-mail to a friend defending his honor. The ESPN.com staff reported what McQueary had to say about his role back in 2002.
"I didn't just turn and run ... I made sure it stopped ... I had to make quick tough decisions."
McQueary’s statement only weakens his credibility, but he truly needs to defend himself if his initial testimony in the Grand Jury Report was misinterpreted.
The preliminary hearings for the trial start on Dec. 7, and Penn State would be best served if people involved with the case kept quiet.
Penn State needs some time to recover, but with the nature of modern communication, that will be years down the road.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?