The Pulse: Sandusky interview devastating to his case

As in the O.J. Simpson murder trial in the '90s, what the defendant has to say for himself can be telling.

November 20, 2011|By Michael Smerconish
  • Jerry Sandusky arrives in handcuffs at the office of Centre County Magisterial District Judge Leslie A. Dutchcot on Nov. 5.

Outrage.

That's all I could think of when watching Bob Costas interview embattled former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky. And I was personally outraged, but I also had a book title in mind.

After O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder, famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book called Outrage describing all that had gone wrong in that case. It was a long list, but, most important, Bugliosi said that the prosecution blew it by not using Simpson's statement to police the afternoon after the murders. In that half-hour interview, Simpson said he had no idea how he cut his left middle finger - coincidentally - about the same time someone was using a knife to nearly decapitate his ex-wife. He also didn't know how blood had gotten in his driveway.

Story continues below.

Q: How did you get the injury on your hand?

O.J.: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.

Q: How did you do it in Chicago?

O.J.: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just went bonkers for a little bit.

Q: Is that how you cut it?

O.J.: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

Q: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

O.J.: I recall bleeding at my house, and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

So what's the connection between Simpson and Sandusky, who is charged with assaulting eight boys? Both men's statements are devastating to their defense.

First, Sandusky's voice on the phone interview was very weak and unsure. He sounded like a beaten man - not an indignant individual wrongly accused and eager to clear his name.

Second, a telephone interview shows he clearly isn't ready for anyone to watch him respond to tough questions. For good reason. In response to Costas' questions, Sandusky corroborated many of the elements of the claims against him and stopped just shy of an admission. Consider this exchange:

Costas: Innocent? Completely innocent and falsely accused in every aspect?

Sandusky: Well, I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their leg without intent of sexual contact. So if you look at it that way, there are things that would be accurate.

1 | 2 | 3 | Next »
|
|
|
|
|