i have a theory about the Sandusky/Costa interview. Not a single legal expert in the world will say that it is a good idea for a defendant to go public and do an interview--there is simply no benefit to it whatsoever--so why would he do it--why would his attorney allow it?
Here is my theory--he is borrowing a page from the Michael Jackson defense playbook. Prior to this trial, I did not meet a SINGLE person who did not think MJ was guilty of molesting little boys--the evidence was overwhelming--how could he deny the sleepovers--but MJ goes on tv and says 'Yeah, I sleep with little boys, but that is all we did was sleep-I have a special relationship with them, etc, etc and that was the end of it. By saying that, he sort of difused the situation--it was poor judgment, but hardly criminal and he was aquitted because there was no real physical evidence--just the testimony of boys ( and their families likely had a financial agenda)
So Sandusky, who is probably throwing up a hail mary here, decides to do the same thing---he admits to showering, he will admit to horsing around in the pool and cracking their back and will admit to enjoying their company, but will end up saying the criminal allegations are all made up--there is no physical evidence---and they can even say the families are only doing this for the money and surely PSU has deep pockets. How does he dismiss the eyewitness account---he can say that were goofing around and McQ was unclear what he saw--the FACT that McQ did not try to stop it--actually helps Sandusky-he can say, hey, what full grown man in their right mind would not stop a kid from being raped---I was washing his back or something--
anyway, just a theory
