Does Joe Amendola feel awkward?

I'd rather ease into my first post in weeks, especially as I broach the Jerry Sandusky and Penn State subject.  Tread lightly, my friends.  We don't want to upset the brainwashed contingent that is Penn State and JoePa defenders, resulting in hateful emails, tweets, comments, et cetera.  Scary!

My only purpose here is to ask and probe (pun intended!) the following question: Does Joe Amendola feel awkward defending Jerry Sandusky?

An obvious guilty man (Sandusky for the unfamiliar humans living under the rock or refusing to turn on a television/read a newspaper/browse the internet) is being defended by an incompetent boob.  A man who stands up and gives petty and worthless defenses of:

- The 10 victims of Jerry Sandusky are at seeking financial gains

- Sandusky was just being a "tickle monster" (euphemism for "anal rape monster")

- All the coaches took showers with children - paraphrased, but based on quotes by one of the defense's witnesses (a former Penn State coach - oh, by the way, the witness retired in 1983 - meaning Sandusky had been showering with children since 1970 - Uncle Jerry was hired in 1969, I'm giving him a year for "settling in")

- Compares the fiasco to a soap opera, like General Hospital.

- Oh, there are others, but isn't that enough idiocy for now?

How can Joe Amendola not feel awkward?  He is trying his best, pulling out all the rabbits from his top hat, probably lying to himself, creating the soap opera and then scapegoating the media.  Slimy bastard.

I leave with a rhetorical question:  Have you ever tried to defend a clearly guilty individual?  Perhaps for trivial offenses (unless you are a criminal defense attorney) or an egregious offense.   Either way, didn't you feel stupid?  Didn't you feel awkward?  Your brain was battling itself, telling you to stop arguing in the way of the stupid, and concede.  Just concede, Joey Amendola!

 

Oh, isn't that the creepiest picture you've seen of Uncle Jerry?  Poor 10 victims (and certainly many more).  Certainly a monster...

 

Advertisement:

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Everyone is entitled to a defense, and just because some defense claim is on a crawl on a news program doesn't mean that it is admissible argument at trial. For instance, the accusers aren't going to get much money if Sandusky is behind bars, although a conviction would have collateral estoppel effect (look that up).

    Of course, on the other hand, Sam Adam Jr. had no compunction against making inadmissible argument, but he did have scruples about defending Blago on the retrial when the campaign contribution-defense fund ran out.

    And, as usual, don't assume that Sandusky doesn't have a defense.We pretty much knew that Roger Clemens had some enhancement, but the prosecution didn't prove to a reasonable doubt that he committed perjury before Congress. Similarly, even though Johnny Reid Edwards is a scumbag, apparently the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he misused campaign funds. I said then that the issue was whether the jury could understand the forensic accounting; in this case, the question is whether circumstantial evidence or someone saying so years after the fact is sufficient given the apparent lack of forensic evidence. One way or the other, it is up to a jury (in this case mostly associated with Penn State, unfortunately) to determine.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yes, everyone is entitled to a defense.

    I'm simply noting the lousy defense showcased by Sandusky's lawyer. And how awkward he must feel because part of me thinks Amendola doesn't believe his own words...

  • In reply to David T.:

    But you weren't in the courtroom. You only know what was on the news crawls or reported by legal illiterate reporters in newspapers.

    Read today's Tribune story which said "[Judge] Cleland reminded jurors it's the prosecution's burden to prove Sandusky is guilty, not Sandusky's burden to prove he's innocent."

    According to that report, the judge also found that there was no evidence to send two of the counts to the jury, and those were regarding the widely-reported incident supposedly seen by McQueary.

    As I said earlier, the other counts go to the jury, for better or worse.

  • In reply to jack:

    Legal illiterate? I am sensing your self-righteous legal crusade...The reporters reported what they heard from Joe Amendola's mouth. You can't twist already twisted words.

    And no, I wasn't in the courtroom, for which I'm grateful for two reasons:

    - I'm not a Penn State troll and brainwashed baboon
    - I didn't have to throw up all over the courtroom during the victims's testimonies.

    And since you are trying to remind (argue perhaps?) me that the sanctity of the courtroom is vital during the process, consider me well informed.

  • In reply to David T.:

    Did they report what they heard from his mouth in the courtroom?

    So, despite what you think about the sanctity of the courtroom, unless it is a client of Glenn Selig trying to taint the jury pool (and it is too late for that here), what is said outside the courtroom is irrelevant.

  • In reply to jack:

    How else would these "defenses" become public?

    Transcripts from the courtroom - and if it is cited as being said by Amendola, then yes, at some point, the words came from Amendola's mouth. Whether by own ears or by a court transcript, the defenses are known by way of those "legal illiterate" reporters (your words).

    Enjoy your crusade.

Leave a comment