November 17, 2011
by Jack Jamison

Jerry Sandusky and his lawyer, Joseph Amendola
By now you’ve seen the interview with Bob Costas and Joseph Amendola. (If you haven’t, it’s right here.)
Let me say right up front that the help these men should get would be something on the order of, say, keeping them alive while they are systematically burned to within an inch of death. I am anti-death penalty, and this is clearly a case where death is too good for the criminal.
And I use that term – criminal – advisedly. Jerry Sandusky has already admitted to naked showering and “horseplay” with children. I’m making the argument that he is proving to the world that he is guilty of the atrocities of which he is accused. Sandusky doesn’t use the exact words, of course, but his behavior is strong evidence he is exactly the kind of victimizer who is so delusional they don’t know what their lies sound like: his lies and the way they are told are practically textbook. He – perhaps only subconsciously – wants you to know he’s guilty.
Given the grand jury testimony already published, Amendola would have to be the worst lawyer in the world to put his client on the phone with Bob Costas. Any legal counselor in their right mind would, had they been stupid enough to start the interview, have cut Sandusky off immediately. Unless, of course, he’s just as delusional as his client. He’s not the world’s worst lawyer, maybe just the worst for Jerry Sandusky.
It turns out the attorney representing the accused child molester has an interesting back story himself: He got a teen-age client pregnant during the mid-1990s. From the NY Daily News:
Amendola, 63, married the girl several years after the birth of their child, The Daily reported Monday night, citing documents filed at the Centre County, Pa., courthouse.
Amendola represented a 16-year-old girl then known as Mary Iavasile when she filed an emancipation petition in September 1996. The emancipation petition said the girl had graduated from high school in two years with a 3.69 GPA and held a fulltime job at Amendola’s law office.
The girl gave birth to Amendola’s child when she was 17 years old, her mother, Janet Iavasile, said. Amendola would have been about 49 years old at the time. The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16.
Janet Iavasile said she didn’t know the extent of the relationship between her daughter and the attorney. She thought he was more of a mentor than a paramour.
Sound familiar?
The Boston Herald put it this way:
So unusual was Sandusky’s interview with Costas that both lawyers speculated Amendola must have had some unknown reason to allow it. Perhaps, they said, Sandusky insisted on talking.
Addressing the matter on NBC’s “Today” show on Tuesday, Amendola said: “I explained to Jerry that this was an opportunity for him to tell people how he felt and what is happening in his life, and the fact that he’s not guilty of these offenses. In fact, Jerry has wanted to talk about this for a long, long time.”
Uh-huh. And you let him because? My guess is, because Joseph Amendola is one of the club. He’s from State College; what do you want to bet that he and Jerry Sandusky go way back? It’s no longer a conspiracy theory, there already has been a cover-up. What else could so quickly have brought down all the top officials from Penn State – and much more has been alleged.
Bob Costas’s reaction to the interview was guarded, but he clearly didn’t understand why either one of them would have done it. Costas should be proud of the job he did; these days it’s rare to hear any newsperson – especially a sports newsperson – ask a tough question. And he asked them all. The last one was perhaps the most telling:
Bob Costas: ”Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?”
Jerry Sandusky: “Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?”
Costas: ”Yes,”
Sandusky: “Sexually attracted, you know, I — I enjoy young people,” Sandusky says. “I — I love to be around them. I — I — but no I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.”
The college-sports website Bleacher Report summed it up this way:
What the hell was going through Sandusky’s brain when he decided to answer that question in that manner on national television?
Overall, what I learned from this interview is that Sandusky is hell bent on self-destruction after destroying so many innocent lives over the years.
And his lawyer is at least complicit in that.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.