s it "news" to simply repeat what Jerry Sandusky's lawyers say? Not just repeat, but give huge prominence?
If the lawyer said that two or three of 12 year old boys were begging for it, should that be printed? Is there anything the lawyer could say that you wouldn't print? Because this headline is fucking bullshit.
I believe that Jerry Sandusky is a sad, delusional man. My guess is that somehow he doesn't understand what he did is wrong. I believe he is socially lacking and maybe a little mentally ill. I think if you shower with little boys, you have to be a little mentally damaged.
NONE of which to say he isn't guilty. I think pedophiles should be killed or at least have their penises cut off. This goes for Sandusky as well (I am fine with permanent chemical castration, if you choose that instead of having your nuts cut off.)
None of that however can be summed up by "being railroaded" by "the system". If anything he was railroaded by his actions.
This really is one of those cases where I wonder how someone can represent Jerry Sandusky. Assumption of innocence or not - if you were a lawyer could you represent him? I mean he had sex with children in a college locker room shower. What the hell? I couldn't. Maybe that is why I couldn't be a criminal lawyer.