<p>
When I was in 8th grade we had to shower after gym and appear in our towels at the shower entrance so the teacher, who sat at a table with a clipboard, could mark down that we were indeed wet. I doubt even that would fly nowadays. S and D have NEVER had to shower after gym in all their years of school.</p>
<p>Today’s witness says he never saw Sandusky do anything wrong with the boys in the showers. Well duh…</p>
<p>^^^
LOL. Right. So Sandusky never molested a child in front of other people? What a stand up guy!!!</p>
<p>The conversation Sandusky had with one of the counserlers of one of the victims did him no favors if it was supposed to make Sandusky look good.</p>
<p>Also all this talk about how he had this special something kids seemed to love, this childlike behavior and that they admired it is indeed creepy. </p>
<p>If these first witnesses were supposed to help him, to me it made him sound even ickier and not this big love muffin they seem to think he was.</p>
<p>He may take the stand. I sure hope so.</p>
<p>I asked a friend whose H is a Div I FB coach and who has 2 HS age sons. She says one on one coaching/work-out is very rare. A coach or retired coach/player may help a small group of boys but rarely just one boy at a time especially if the child has not entered HS. If there has been a long team practice or after a game the team (not coaches) will shower.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What conversation was that? Where did you see it, Seahorse?</p>
<p>Abc news report has coverage Today’s testimony. Sandusky e</p>
<p>I hope he testifies, too. That interview with Bob Costas was amazing in how perverted he seemed. If the prosecutor does half the job Costas did, it’ll show him for what he is.</p>
<p>If the man were truly innocent, wouldn’t he be screaming it to the rooftops? Indignant? Outraged? Having a nervous breakdown at being falsely accused? Wouldn’t his family be speaking out for him?</p>
<p>Where do they find these people to testify in his favor? I understand that someone might have sheltered experience of an accused individual and be able to testify truthfully in a way that is in the interest of the defendent but…they have to have heard the allegations and at least wonder if they are true. How do you sit there and talk about his commitment, etc and not at feel like you are helping a pervert avoid jail. One of them is an elementary school teacher? C’mon.</p>
<p>
This goes back to the whole PSU community thing. Those witnesses may feel proud that they’re defending Penn State, while turning a blind eye to the crime.</p>
<p>I keep hearing the line, “Jerry was a saint.” He couldn’t possibly have done these things because he was a saint . . . really? It’s these types of explanations that make me think that there’s another layer of power, abuse and untouchable culture beyond PSU that helps many of these people to look the other way or think that somehow the surface manifestations were less abnormal than they are.</p>
<p>@goingmyway ---- let’s reinterate this one more time, there is NO support for Sandusky that is associated with defense of the University. None. He is enemy #1 on PSU supporters’ list, not to mention that quite a sizeable number of grads and students had never heard of Sandusky before last November. </p>
<p>The reason people took the stand in his defense is obvious, but mind-boggling. They think he’s innocent.</p>
<p>I am not saying you or anyone you know supports Sandusky in defense of Penn State.</p>
<p>Is it not possible to you that: The reason people took the stand in his defense is obvious, but mind-boggling. They think he’s innocent = turning a blind eye to the crime in some misguided defense of PSU.</p>
<p>^^ I know you’re not saying that…but no, I don’t think these people are defending him in some misguided attempt to say PSU is not to blame = turning a blind eye to the crime. At least in Mr Booker? and Mr Anderson’s cases, I believe they are defending someone they see as horribly, unfairly, and falsely accused. They don’t think there WAS a crime.</p>
<p>Side question: can you be subpoened (ohh, that’s spelled so wrong) as a defense witness? Is it possible some of Sandusky’s 6 witnesses were not voluntary? Some of their testimony seemed less than useful.</p>
<p>Even if it is possible, would it be in the defense’s best interest to have reluctant witnesses on the stand testifying as to character? I mean, I can see it if they need facts, witnesses, etc but if someone is testifying about character and isn’t sincere in his delivery, the jury is going to sense it. I’m sure defense lawyers know that.</p>
<p>'If the man were truly innocent, wouldn’t he be screaming it to the rooftops? Indignant? Outraged? Having a nervous breakdown at being falsely accused? Wouldn’t his family be speaking out for him?"</p>
<p>If he were innocent, but smart, he’d be saying nothing at all publicly unless it were through his attorneys.</p>
<p>It would be the prosecutors’ wildest dream for a man like this to take the stand. He believes he had consensual love affairs with these boys, and there’s nothing wrong with it. It shows.</p>
<p>why isn’t the prosecution using the Costas tape where Sandusky basically acknowledges his abuse of some kids? hope they do once Amendola presents Sandusky’s denial, via that tape or by putting him on the stand. would like to hear him backtrack that admission…</p>
<p>As a former prosecutor, I will be stunned if Sandusky actually takes the stand. If he does, it will be an instance of an attorney who simply cannot control his client.</p>
<p>
This came out during the Bob Costos interview. The man is sick. And the fact that JoePa and all of PSU (Spanier, and others, including the missing DA) did nothing, allowed Sandusky to continue to believe he was right. That’s why this case is so scary.</p>
<p>ETA: I can’t imagine Sandusky will take the stand. He already made too many mistakes on other venues, and that was not even egged on by a prosecutor.</p>
<p>
Hanna, I think you are right and in some sick twisted way - his wife, family and associates convinced themselves the good he was doing for these boys out weighed the harm.</p>