You should ask someone who went to PSU those questions. I don't have a degree there, though my school did hand out a degree to a philandering slave-owner who fathered children out of wedlock and then froze them out of his family. You could find someone reprehensible from just about every school. You could probably go to a USC message board and lecture them about being associated with OJ Simpson, an Ohio State board and bring up Jeffrey Dahmer (luckily for tOSU he dropped out after a semester, so the degrees are only 1/8th sullied). Harvard and Michigan degrees are equally sullied since Ted Kaczynski went there.
Slavery is definitely relevant to this conversation....thanks for pointing that out.
I don't recall USC, OSU, Harvard or Michigan covering up any of those, so your analogy fails harder than El Blimpo.
Murdering innocents isn't evil? They aren't tainted by association?
Of course you miss the point. You can taint every school with awful scumbags if you look hard enough.
Apples and oranges...
Like he said, PSU hid it. I doubt you could find 20 people currently on campus who knew Jeffrey Dahmer took a quarter at OSU, and even so, it's not like he killed a bunch of OSU students and the university tried to hide it and pretend it didn't happen.
I don't see Harvard publicizing the fact they were responsible for the education that molded the Unabomber. The idea that the actions of an individual associated with a school somehow taints a degree and should shame people with a diploma from there into burning their diploma and disassociating with that school is a canard written solely to inflame and troll posters.
PSU the school didn't hide anything. Individuals at PSU hid this. You can rightly target those people without targeting people who had nothing to do with any of this.
So we're not allowed to talk about Paterno's tarnished legacy because......we already talked about that? Time heals all wounds as long as people stop talking about it, is that what the PSU'ers are hoping for?
That's the headline for the PG arrticle on the case today. It says defense will start monday, I'm guessing that means today is the last day of the prosecution's case.
I'm surprised the prosecution has rested already. I thought this would be a much, much longer trial.
Wow, they have? That's pretty crazy.
i was just going from what my GF said. Now that i'm looking I can't find that anywhere, so maybe they didn't.
All I heard yesterday morning were updates saying they expected to wrap up their case yesterday, but havent heard anything if they actually did or not. I thought so too that was really soon.
this will be a relatively short trial compared to other high profile cases. the prosecution has expanded on the grand jury testimony and the defense hasnt really denied their claims.
From what I had heard they were originally expecting three weeks for the trial, but it may only go two now. That depends on how the defense presents their case. You would think they are going to want to stretch this out a bit.
I'm guessing the defense will consist of what a wonderful human being Sandusky is.
Basically what Im hearing so far, is much of their defense seems to revolve around proving the dates the victims are claiming to be abused are incorrect yikes.
I'm guessing the defense will consist of what a wonderful human being Sandusky is.
Basically what Im hearing so far, is much of their defense seems to revolve around proving the dates the victims are claiming to be abused are incorrect yikes.
yeah, I have yet to hear them come out and actually refute anything other than dates and times.
Am I remembering this correctly, that either Sandusky or his attorney was saying that the showering with the children wasn't weird. It's a jock thing or something for him to shower with the boys?
Am I remembering this correctly, that either Sandusky or his attorney was saying that the showering with the children wasn't weird. It's a jock thing or something for him to shower with the boys?
pretty much. showering and horseplay while naked was "normal" and blowing raspberries on them was just him trying show his care for them. it's a weak defense to say the least.
Am I remembering this correctly, that either Sandusky or his attorney was saying that the showering with the children wasn't weird. It's a jock thing or something for him to shower with the boys?
pretty much. showering and horseplay while naked was "normal" and blowing raspberries on them was just him trying show his care for them. it's a weak defense to say the least.
the Michael Jackson defense. "Sure, I slept with them, cuddled with them, gave them baths, etc, but it wasn't in a WEIRD way!"
Given that one of Sandusky's attorneys had sex with his 17 old year client, it doesn't surprise me the defense consists of "This isn't abnormal behavior, just having fun and it was misunderstood."
Given that one of Sandusky's attorneys had sex with his 17 old year client, it doesn't surprise me the defense consists of "This isn't abnormal behavior, just having fun and it was misunderstood."
Eh, I think its unfair to compare the two. Sure its skeevy to sleep with a 17 year old, but in alot of states that isnt even illegal. This guy raped pre teen boys.
With the number of counts against him, will he be let off if one date/time doesn't appear to match up correctly? Is it an all or nothing situation, where all of the victims stories have to be believed, or if the jury only believes some of it and not others, could he still be convicted?
Given that one of Sandusky's attorneys had sex with his 17 old year client, it doesn't surprise me the defense consists of "This isn't abnormal behavior, just having fun and it was misunderstood."
Eh, I think its unfair to compare the two. Sure its skeevy to sleep with a 17 year old, but in alot of states that isnt even illegal. This guy raped pre teen boys.
She's still a minor at 17. He was in his 40s. It's statutory rape. It's illegal in PA.
Last edited by llipgh2 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Given that one of Sandusky's attorneys had sex with his 17 old year client, it doesn't surprise me the defense consists of "This isn't abnormal behavior, just having fun and it was misunderstood."
Eh, I think its unfair to compare the two. Sure its skeevy to sleep with a 17 year old, but in alot of states that isnt even illegal. This guy raped pre teen boys.
She's still a minor at 17. He was in his 40s. It's statutory rape. It's illegal in PA.