<p>Did anyone else see the woman defending JS on Anderson Cooper 360 tonight? There are still those on his side, through thick and thin. Basically said everyone is pretty much lying for money.</p>
<p>I agree with Seahorsesrock. She’s not going to say anything about what went on under her roof that may imply his guilt. She’s not in denial. She’s protecting herself from future civil suits.</p>
<p>correction: Sandusky and his wife adopted one girl in addition to the 5 boys.</p>
<p>Are any of their kids going to testify?</p>
<p>I may have mentioned this upthread, but I once knew a guy who was a child predator. He was well aware that his impulses were illegal, and therefore had to be hidden. But he didn’t believe they were wrong, and that’s the illness, Seahorses. Usually it’s an illness that can’t be cured, at least not without long-term therapy that our mental health system just can’t provide to every predator. These guys need to be locked up forever.</p>
<p>
Not only his guilt but her own. If she heard and knew what was going on, then she is as guilty as the rest of the PSU crew. Personally, I don’t know how anyone could have that many kids “spending the night in the basement” and not know something was going on.</p>
<p>Why didn’t NBC air the most damning part of Bob Costa’s interview of Sandusky:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Dottie heard and knew and did nothing, she is more responsible than anyone else besides Jerry, himself, who I do believe is sick. I don’t think calling it a sickness is releasing someone from the responsibility of their actions. I don’t feel sorry for him but I do think that serial pedophiles are ill and, he, like most others, was probably abused as a child. That’s the cycle. I don’t think it can be cured and I am in favor of whatever measures need to be taken to protect children from these monsters. </p>
<p>If Dottie knew, heard the cries, lived with the evidence and did nothing, she should go to jail, as well.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Maybe morally she should go to jail, but legally too? Assuming she didn’t “aid and abet” her husband’s misdeeds, I’m thinking she might well be open to civil suits, but is it a crime to fail to prevent someone else from committing or fail to report them for having committed it? (I don’t know the answer; I’m asking).</p>
<p>'Why would you put them on the stand? Anything they’d have to say would be hearsay."</p>
<p>That’s not correct. Admissions by the defendant (meaning anything a witness remembers Sandusky saying) are not hearsay. Other kinds of statements might come in under relevant hearsay exceptions, like to show the state of mind of the speaker. If Frank remembers Bill saying, “We’ve got to fire Sandusky, he’s a predator,” that’s not admissible to prove that Sandusky was a predator, but it IS admissible to prove that Bill had a certain belief at that point in time.</p>
<p>The defense punted. I’d say from a brief review of the presentation that they did the minimum, meaning they had nothing and made a bare show. </p>
<p>BTW, it’s absolutely common for child predators to believe they are doing the best for the children they molest. They often don’t see themselves as monsters. They sometimes see themselves as nearly angels bringing goodness to children.</p>
<p>Right. But it would amount to witness A saying that witness B was told by witness C that he saw Sandusky have sex with witness D. It would make for great stuff in the civil suits against B and C, but might result in making the prosecution’s own witnesses (B and C) look bad.</p>
<p>I skimmed the last few pages and I have been loosely following this case. However, did anyone else wonder about the guys who said that they, too, showered with kids? Did anyone ask this: when you shower with children, do you touch and/ or hug them? THAT is the telling question.</p>
<p>Also, I do not think I could defend my husband over something like this. She had to know. When an adult has kids in the house all the time, the other adult pops in and offers snacks or SOMETHING. In this world, both parties need to be wary about accusations.</p>
<p>Closing arguments in the morning. God help us all if this monster walks. It’s all about who the jury believes was telling the truth. Hopefully we’ll find out what the jury instructions are, but it will be such a long weekend, waiting.</p>
<p>If he walks I would be dumbfounded.</p>
<p>
I really hope you are right. I don’t have much faith in juries these days. I fear if one juror holds out, the others might cave just because they want to go home. Some people can be so gullible, so if any juror has doubts, it could make for a difficult time. I just hope that the jurors who think he is guilty will remain steadfast.</p>
<p>Remember that (in theory) the jury only knows what was brought out in testimony in the courtroom. They may find a witness unbelievable for reasons that you can’t tell from reading news reports. They are instructed to apply a tough standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).</p>
<p>I think Sandusky will be convicted, too, because there didn’t seem to be enough defense evidence. But you never know what a jury will do, and I hesitate to criticize them.</p>
<p>I’m not worried about this outcome. I think the jury will do the right thing.</p>
<p>Every pundit on TV has said he has no defense.</p>
<p>Can’t wait for the civil suits!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have similar concerns. This, or the possibility that one hold-out could lead to a hung jury, forcing a retrial. Although it’s difficult for me to imagine, thinking rationally, any conceivable outcome other than a conviction.</p>
<p>OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, John Edwards, Roger Clemens.</p>
<p>I dunno…</p>