The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Elusive Trope's picture

    innocence lost

    By Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:13pm |

    There a number of factors as to why the scandal at Penn St has captured the public psyche.  One of the key factors centers around those who seek to vilify Joe Paterno and those who seek to defend his good name.  As one of those who believe JoePa enabled a pedophile predator to run amuck for years and years, I do not understand those who enthusiastically defend the man.

    What seems to be at play is those who cannot come to terms with the fall from grace of someone who was held in the upmost esteem. The world as they knew it doesn’t make sense anymore.

    While going about looking at blogs on the Penn St. scandal, I came across Michael Weinreb's take on the matter at the Grantland site. Definitely worth the read. The basic jest is summed up with this statement:

    Something terrible happened on my street when I was kid, something that I had screened from my consciousness for many years until last weekend. My neighbor Scott Holderman and I were futzing about near the side of his house, setting up one of those epic Star Wars tête-à-têtes or digging for earthworms or doing whatever children do on nice days in quiet neighborhoods, and then there came a horrible screeching, the braking of an automobile that could not stop in time. The car had crested the steep hill of our street and slammed into a child who wandered into it. I can still see the child lying there, and I can still hear the mother's tortured shriek when she realized it was one of hers. An ambulance arrived, and then a medevac helicopter touched down 30 feet from our house, and they took the child away. He survived, but he wasn't the same.

    When I was 6, near his age when this event happened, my family was driving somewhere.  We were a few blocks from our house in a southern California suburb, stopped three cars back at a stop sign at the first major street near our house.  This was the street we were forbidden to cross on our bikes, as the cars sped past at high rate of speed.

    Just as we came to a full stop in our place in line at the stop sign, there was a screech of tires and then a sickening thud.  In the few seconds that followed - the mind processed what it just heard.  Even at six I knew what had happened.  Even before there was screams of other people getting out of their cars. 

    What had exactly happened was two girls riding on one bike were riding through the cross walk at that intersection.  The driver heading through the intersection, who without someone in the crosswalk had the right-of-way did not see them in the dusk light until it was too late.

    My father turned around and gave us that look that meant we dare not not do what he said: "No one gets out of the car."  Then he was gone, running to see what he could do to help. 

    I careened through the space between the two fronts seats of our Grand Prix, and I saw the driver turning in a tight circle.  I could hear basically scream "oh my god - I didn't see them - oh my god - I didn't see them."

    Someone came by and calmed the driver down.  The police and ambulances arrived, although unlike Weinreb's story, the two girls did not survive.  They died on the scene.

    The next day I rode my Schwinn Stingray to the scene.  I stopped at the corner of Charger Blvd and Cannington Dr.*  The gutter was stained the blood.  I stood there with my bike and stared at the evidence of what happened the night before.  Stared at all that remained that spoke of two girls just a little older than me who were no longer alive. 

    My understanding of the world changed in a fundamental way.  In a fundamental way I was not the same because the world as I understood it was no longer the same.

    Who we are is a function of our relationship with the world.  As one changes so does the relationship, and so does the other in the relationship. 

    It can be said I grew up sheltered in my middle class suburban world.  It can be said that there might be something wrong that it took something like that incident to break into my world in order to tell me that bad things happen to innocent people.  But my upbringing was what it was.  Just as what happened that night in the intersection was what it was.

    The point is that we all bring our illusions to the table.  Events will happened that cause us to reevaluate those illusions, sometimes dispelling the illusions altogether.  The scandal at Penn St, the fall of Joe Paterno, is one in which we are witnessing many illusions being dispelled. 

    And when this happens we find ourselves in place unmoored.  The liminal space.  Somewhere between point a and point b.   Neither here nor there.  At threshold, but the threshold of what we do not know.

    Penn St is the mirror we did not want to confront.  But we are what we are.  We will survive, but we will not be the same.

    *I goggled the map of the site.  I was a little unsettled to see this place, not to mention the house in which I grew up in there on Arundel.  I have never used google to look at where I grew up before.  And to look at this place now, how little has changed.

    Comments

    From Weinreb's take: If it means that this is how Joe Paterno goes out, then so be it;

    This is in fact how JoePa goes out, nothing is going to change that.  They might even move his bronze statue from the stadium to the furthest duck pond on campus and surround it with nettles.  The guy was a shoe-in for the Medal of Freedom, now he has disgraced his family name, the Penn State coaching staff, and the school.

    Another take on it from a former football player, makes a good point: By not following up, Paterno put more children at risk. This is the stain that will never be washed from Paterno’s legacy. That he didn’t suggests Paterno had either lost his moral compass in the fog of adulation around him or simply gotten old and lazy and couldn’t see the situation for what it was, and didn’t understand it. Either way, there’s no excuse for his inaction.

    Paterno should have gone to that meeting in 2002 where the shower incident was discussed. The Penn leadership should have followed immediately, the same day, with a discussion with Sandusky. They should have told him - turn yourself in within 24 hours to the authorities, confess and ask for help, or we will turn you in.

     


    by NCD on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:31pm

    So true. 

    By not following up, Paterno put more children at risk. This is the stain that will never be washed from Paterno’s legacy.

    And why he did not follow up, when by all other evidence he was decent person is what is so confusing.

    What leads us to lose our moral compass? 


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:31pm

    I think Paterno is just a really old guy who belongs to a generation for whom most unusual forms of sexual behavior, especially the criminally deviants variants thereof, are just too freaky to be contemplated before being seen, and too disturbing to be grasped and acknowledged even when witnessed.

    Plus the guy is an Italian Catholic.  He lived his whole life in a culture in which it was an open secret ... like forever ...that a not insignificant number of priests have a proclivity toward groping, fondling and sometimes having sex with young boys, generally without securing anything that a reasonable person would call "consent".  He was just avoiding the same big unmentionable that he and his cultural cohort avoided for years.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:18pm

    At the same time, being Catholic he should have been hyper-aware of the damage done by pedophiles, if not in 1998 then in 2002.

    But the cultural facet is something to confront.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:26pm

    As to this point...

    "Penn leadership should have followed immediately, the same day, with a discussion with Sandusky. They should have told him - turn yourself in within 24 hours to the authorities, confess and ask for help, or we will turn you in."

    State law requires that all University staff at the adminstrative level having knowledge of any child abuse shall contact the State Child Welfare Services Department. No if, ands or buts.

    ~OGD~

     


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:18am

    Sadly, it may be that Paterno's actions were legal according to Penn. state law.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111114_Penn_State_scandal_will_promp...


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:42am

    If they handled it in some fashion like this, confronting the accused and getting the police involved right away, they would have avoided the current disgrace.


    by NCD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:28am

    You are correct...

    Even though, by the letter of the current law Paterno was not legally bound to report what he knew to Child Services, in my world I see him as having a moral obligation to have reported his close friend and associate to the proper authorities.

    Paterno shirked this obligation to his family, the children and their families, in addition to the entire community and society in general.

    No if, ands, or buts.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:26am

    We will never know for sure why Paterno failed to do his duty.

    What was his duty? Making sure that Sandusky got treatment that seemed likely to prevent him  from attacking any more children.For example Paterno could have forced Sandusky to join him in a visit to a psychiatrist known for treating child abusers. 

    Why didn't he ? Who knows, who cares. In fact he failed to do his duty so it was right for Penn State to punish him.

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:58am

    Reading my comment I realize  it can be read to imply that in Paterno's position I would have done what I am recommending..

    That's wrong.

    I don't know whether I would have done the right thing..I'd like to say that I would but I don't know that's true.

    I have failed other moral tests in my life and I might have failed that one.


    by Flavius on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:23am

    If we look at the question and focus on that particular incident in 2002, then I think we can all step back and say we don't know exactly how we would have reacted.  We are all humans and we have all failed.  But the questions we ask and the expectations to which we are holding up those like Paterno in this case focus on behavior that stretches over a decade.  At the very least it goes back to 1998 (and I believe when all is said and done, we will find out that a lot of people knew something well before this).  Month after month, year after year they failed, and failed and failed.  They watch this man walk freely around them, and never finally did the right thing.  Somehow they could look in the mirror and go on with their daily lives.  So while I might not have done the right thing on this or that day, I do like to think that eventually I would have found the courage to step up and do the right thing.  As it stands, had Victim 1 from the Presentment not have found the courage, Sandusky would still be out there preying on kids. 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:42am

    In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis wrote:

    Good and evil both increase at compound interest.

    I think this is an excellent case in point. It's easy to imagine that in 1998 (or earlier), Paterno took a wrong step in choosing not to report this incident. Maybe he trusted Sandusky too much after the latter swore that it was a misunderstanding or that he wouldn't do it again, or some other malarkey that an unclouded eye would find easy to dismiss. Maybe he just thought about how it would harm Penn State's football program and his own career. Whatever the reason, once he added to the "principal" of evil in his bank account, it began collecting interest. For one, it's easier to walk down a path one has trodden down before. For another, he now knew that he shared culpability. He would know that if this came out in the future, he might get indicted (as he has been) for failing to report it earlier. That one bad decision would naturally lead to another and then to another. That's why we must fight making such bad decisions ourselves. There's very rarely a single solitary "particular incident" that can be separated from other incidents.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:52am

    This is an excellent point, and hits home what I was trying to discuss in my earlier blog Our Criminal Minds.  We are neither angels nor devils, but humans.

    It does make me stop for a moment to think about how we do not know Paterno's past, what wounds and traumas he may have experienced in his life that might have facilitated this or that bad decision or keeping to a path now regretted.  This is not to say that as a society we should just give people a pass if they had a terrible past.  So many child abusers were abused themselves as children.  But at some point we put aside their victimhood, no matter how awful, and administer justice based on their criminal behavior


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:04pm

    Yeah, I've spent my whole life calling up the police to report any wrongdoing, knowing they'll come along and clean up the situation properly. Not.

    Much of our legal system is built around informal codes of how we handle initial infractions. Kid stealing candy from the counter, drug use or selling a few joints, drunk driving, rape which quite often goes unreported and sadly often unresolved or amended...

    We protect our friends even when trying to do the right thing. If we're responsible for a multi-million dollar program, we also try to protect that. And then we try to do the human thing. And then possibly the legally correct thing.

    I don't know if Paterno thought he'd solved the problem, or even if he understood the depth of the problem.

    I'm a bit disappointed in Paterno based on his reputation for caring about players' grades and lives off the field - my impression is his limited interest in this situation didn't live up to his reputation.

    I reject the idea that a man who coached football players for 40+ years was naïve about aberrant sex or homosexuality.

    Mostly I think it was a case where he thought he'd done enough to fix the problem for all involved (well, not so much for the kid), and 8 years later he finds out he was woefully wrong. It happens. I don't think it was vanity - just the amount of effort and routine he expected to work. But it didn't. Say buh-bye.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:52am

    reject the idea that a man who coached football players for 40+ years was naïve about aberrant sex or homosexuality

    Peracles. The issue is pederasty. Which can be either homosexual or heterosexual.


    by Flavius on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:20am

    Well, I haven't heard of any heterosexual pederasty in this case, and I think we're talking about boys' locker rooms and boys' clubs, no?


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:14pm

    There are some people on various reader boards at some sites that attempt to equate what happened with homosexuality - as in 'see, this is why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed children' 'both are perversions of the same order,' etc.  As if a male pedophiles who target female children shows why heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed children. 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:27pm

    Ok, understand, no, don't think gay = pederasty, even though there's a bit of sub-theme running through the Ginsberg-Burroughs repertoire and all those priest tales. But then gay ≠ Morocco either.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:08pm

    since we have books such as Lolita we can also say straight=pederasty.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:20pm

    One issue that people seldom confront is when "sexually desirable" and "sexually available" meet. It's a difficult question. Some states limit definition of statutory rape if the pair's within 2 years of each other. To say a 15-year-old's not interested in sex is naïve. To say he/she's not ready may depend on the century you were born in and your culture. Some people increase the age of their desired as they grow up, others stay stuck at "Sweet Sixteen".

     In some cultures they masturbate babies to sleep as well, not an act of sexual desire or probably not "abuse", and very different than penetration of a 10 year old.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:57am

    When we look at the investigation in 1998 and assume (and yes at this time it is an assumption) that Paterno was made aware of the details of the investigation of his heir apparent and Defensive Coordinator, then the notion that he thought he'd done enough while watching this man walk around his facility is hard to accept.  If he had thought that it would mean he found it acceptable for a pedophile predator to walk freely and work with kids through a charity. 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:30am

    His access to the facility was revoked, and the charity was informed as I believe were the parents? So perhaps Paterno thought that those 3 devices would fix the problem. That still may be naïve, but...


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:16pm

    I recall my cousin dying in a car accident; I must have been 5?

    A lot of nightmares because they all explained over and over again how it occurred.

    But let us mix it up.

    About 55,000 victims a year back then when we had half our present population.

    Society/government decided the deaths were worth it after balancing the bad associated with cars and the good associated with cars--employment, individual freedoms....

    So there was a lot of blame to go around for this massacre of our citizens.

    Let us assume the child in the crosswalk gets massacred by a Ford truck and the driver is drunk.

    Now how many of us have gotten behind the wheel after 'a few drinks'?

    In the 60's I recall being sent home with a warning.

    By the late 70's cops were stopping and arresting cops and judges and mayors for DUI's.

    Slate presents a nice review of scandals related to our college amateur sports programs.

    Millions taken illegally per this ruse of amateurism.

    And there is a lot of blame to go around in this area.

    But I am still stuck and struck by this picture of a physically fit assistant coach walking past a shower where a 50 year old man is buggering a ten year old boy.

    The 50 year old buggerer should get life.

    But that assistant coach should get five or ten just for his moral depravity.

    Paterno?

    What is this retired coach doing with access to the college in the first place?

    There is enough responsibility to go around.

    But it is a matter of degree!

     

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:04am

    "The 50 year old buggerer should get life." - I suspect people are a bit hysterical about this stuff.

    Yes, there likely should be jail terms on child molestation. No, "life" is not reasonable. While I imagine some of this is traumatic, receiving lathering and oral sex are not the most awful experiences possible in rape cases.

    For some reasons millions of young girls get raped, and we don't have this outcry - much of it is ignored or hushed up. But when it's a young boy, that gets our sense of outrage moving. Strange beings, us.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:31am

    For some reasons millions of young girls get raped, and we don't have this outcry - much of it is ignored or hushed up. But when it's a young boy, that gets our sense of outrage moving. Strange beings, us.

    Interesting. I don't have that feeling at all. You are right that millions of cases of girls getting raped get ignored or hushed up. The same also happens to millions of cases of boys getting raped. The only "special case" I'm aware of is of the pre-teen or teen-age boy who has sex with an adult female. Those cases are definitely treated differently by a broad swath of people. I don't feel that young girls getting raped is considered any more acceptable than young boys getting raped by the vast, vast majority of the public.

    It's unlikely you can support your feeling with empirical evidence, even if it's true, any more than I can support my contrasting feeling, so I don't expect you to provide such evidence. Nor am I saying that you are unequivocally wrong, for much the same reasons. I'm just saying that my intuition is at odds with your intuition.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:04am

    THE SECOND MILE SHUFFLE:


    by Richard Day on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:26am

    Here's a site with statistics - http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

    1/6 women are victims of attempted or completed rape. 

    3% of men.

    9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.2

     

    7% of girls in grades 5-8 and 12% of girls in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused.4

    • 3% of boys grades 5-8 and 5% of boys in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused.

    If girls are 2-3 times more likely to be sexually abused, how come it's the Catholic church scandles with boys that stick in our heads rather than the more common abuse of females?

    Likely because abuse of females is considered the norm, however we pretend.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:10pm

    one of the key reasons the Catholic Church and now Penn St are "sticking in our heads" is not the gender of the victims, but because there is institutional support of the victimizers.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:26pm

    Yes, statistically, abuse of females is "more" the norm, and as such I suspect we're more aware on a per-case basis when it happens with males, but I do not see evidence that there is more or less of an outcry for female or male victims, or that it is more or less ignored or hushed up. If anything, I've seen evidence that males are less likely to report such abuse, so it is on that side of the coin that it is more likely to be ignored or hushed up.

    Compare these statistics with the ones you link to. It's a pretty stark difference, and I don't know whose methodology is better. Whether it's one in six boys that are sexually abused (per what I've heard and the site I link to) or one in twenty (the last number your cite for grades 9-12) or even one in thirty (the first number you cite), we can agree on two things: it's less for boys/men than for girls/women, and any is too much.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:53pm

    Or as your link states:

     

    • * All statistics on the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect are disputed by some experts. (Incidence refers to the number of new cases each year, and prevalence to the percentage of people in some population who have had such experiences.)

       

    • * The most controversial issues are how to define abuse, especially sexual abuse, and which definitions are applied to research data.

     

    Since he doesn't talk about abuse of girls, it's impossible to equate using his methods. Now whether it's shame and silence or what, I've *never* met a guy who mentioned receiving sexual abuse. I've met lots of women who've been raped. And I can't imagine that with many guys  wouldn't be saying "some fucker abused me when I was little" if it had happened.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:47am

    Like Trope underlines here, the sin of the Roman Catholic Church related to pedophilia and statutory rape (having sex with preadults over 13 or 14).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

    Catholic priests and other employees of Catholic schools and churches were having sex with CHILDREN. Girls and boys were raped.

    Now there was and is real rape going on with pedophiles--that is forced rape without consent.

    The issue becomes, when is one old enough to gain consent?

    I have no doubt that there is forcible rape of men by men and women by men going on out there every day and I have yet to hear a defense--a formal defense of this awful violent crime.

    But the issue involving Penn also dealt with a charity set up by a pedophile with the aid of Penn and those running Penn. The charity was partially a front giving this pedophile access to young children--it appears that this pedophile liked boys.

    I have heard terrible things on the street as far as rape. I mean men will opine upon hearing about some rape--oh she was asking for it. But most men wont.

    Recently this statement was actually made in the media that a ten year old girl was asking for it.

    These issues become confused.

    But I just do not think that this particular scandal at Penn has anything to do with gender!

    I just don't.

     

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:17pm

    The article ArtAppraiser indirectly linked to sums it up nicely:

    http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/tenuredradical/2011/11/1401/


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:01am

    I'm fascinated by the thought that we equate the mundane moral failure of a wealthy and powerful man, a football coach, for goodness sake, with the violent deaths of children.

    Lordy.


    by Red Planet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:05am

    There may be some who are equating these two things, but not most.  I think people's response is based on the notion of power and powerlessness.  Most people see the suffering and deaths around the world, from rape to drone bombings, and basically feel powerless (rightly or wrongly) to do anything to stop it.  And then we have an example of a very powerful man who had the opportunity to step in and put an end to at least one source of the suffering, to stop a pedophile predator, and he didn't.  And I don't know if one would call not stepping in and stopping a pedophile predator a mundane failure.  I don't think all of Sandusky's victims would think his failure was mundane. 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 11:24am

    To be clear, AT, I'm referring to the moral failure of Paterno, not the crimes committed by Sandusky.

    I understood you to say that there was some equivalence between the psychological impact of Paterno's lapse and the psychological impact of the violent, pointless deaths of children.

    Probably, I misread you.


    by Red Planet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:20pm

    a few different things going on here.  the moral failure of Paterno can be seen as allowing Sandusky to commit his crimes on those children.  There is no way one can truly compare the the rape of children's psychological impact on the children, their families, the larger community with the psychological impact of the violent, pointless deaths of children.  victims of child rape suffer their kind of death, while not physical, one could argue, if one was so inlcined, that it was a worse sentence than just being killed.

    but there is also on some level an equivalence to having one's known world and one's relationship with it altered forever changed.  at some level  it doesn't matter what the source of the upsetting the mental apple cart was if the end result is a re-examination of what believes to be true about the world and our place in it. 

    sorry virginia there is no santa clause can come to us deeply tragic ways and not-so deeply tragic ways.  that an otherwise decent human being like Paterno could turn a blind eye to a pedophile predator walking freely by him is somewhere on that spectrum. the impact on many people's world-view is no less shattered than mine was from the incident in the intersection.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:13pm

    I highly recommend this thread related to yours:

    More on Penn State and Jerry Sandusky
    By Ta-Nehisi Coates @ The Atlantic, Nov 11 2011

    Not only because the videos of Jon Ritchie that he cites are directly on your topic of "loss of innocence." (Clue: it's Jon Ritchie that's having the loss of innocence there; he thought he knew Sandusky well, over many years, and thought him a true great man.) But also because several of the comments are excellent contributions in their own right from former victims of child abuse or counselors of the same, and the range of nuance in their thoughts is very thought-provoking.

    For those who can't take the time to read through those comments, I would just like to refer to one link of many good ones that are given there, because it's a good one related to a discussion on this thread. From Tenured Radical blog: ...Penn State’s cover-up is embedded in the interest it, and all universities, have in keeping many forms of sexual violence and sexual harassment a private, internal matter.  The mistake Penn State made was, in many ways, a simple category error:  they mistook these pubescent boys for women.  They forgot that children occupy a very different status in the law than do the female students, faculty and staff who are most frequently the object of unwanted sexual attention and/or violence...

    I think that amidst all the other ramifications of this story, it's important to simply recognize as she does there, how in the last half century, as our culture became more open about sex, it also has come to think of pedophilia as one of the worst evils, and one to be addressed as such, rather than swept under the carpet as in the past. That in the Olympics of evil, we now put it right at the top, way above rape of an adult woman or perhaps even the murder of an adult. And yes, it's probably about our concept of innocence. And "in loco parentis." And "it takes a village." And probably many other things.

     


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:03pm

    I happen to see this interview with Jon Ritchie when it first occurred.  Thanks for posting the link to it.  Everyone should watch it.  It probably had a large influence on why I became focused on the loss of innocence angle.  There is one point when Jon said as he got to know Jerry Sandusky while being recruited by him that Jon viewed him, even though he went to Stanford instead, as kind of man he wanted to be when he grew up.  Jon even became involved in the Second Mile foundation because of Sandusky.  One interesting comment was how we always saw Sandusky as being so humble when receiving recognition for his work with the kids, and that in retrospect it wasn't humilty but shame.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:22pm

    Sandusky speaks.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 9:19am

    One of the creepiest interviews of all time.  Bob Costas was prepared to have an interview with the lawyer, and ten minutes before it suppose to occur, the lawyer asked if Costas wanted to actually interview Sandusky.  I think Costas did a pretty good job given the amount of time he had to psychologically prepare for speaking to this man.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 10:46am