OT: Sandusky defense rests; Sandusky will not testify

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on June 20th, 2012 at 12:57 PM

For those still following the grim saga: Jerry Sandusky will not testify after all.  The defense did get in testimony from a number of people associated with the football program and the school, as well as Sandusky's wife, who testified that Sandusky is a great guy and/or that he had a great reputation.  They also got in some evidence that possibly undermined the credibility of an accuser or two. 

It seems from afar that the defense did about as well as they could given the facts and allegations that they had to deal with.  My guess, FWIW, is that they hope that at least one juror is too much of a PSU fan to allow him or herself to believe that the allegations are true. 

It's most important that the jury make a decision based on the facts in front of them, of course, and that decision sure looks from the available reports of the trial like it should be a finding of guilt. That said (and of much less concern), I think that Penn St. should hope for a guilty verdict, as odd as that may sound.  A firestorm of negative attention will descend on Happy Valley if Sandusky is found not guilty, and the region will be tarred by this situation in a worse way than it already has been. 



 FINAL NOTE:  Let's not take this thread down a bad path.  Either a large number of children were abused or a man's life has been irrevocably damaged. We should hold off on our usual irreverance (which I enjoy most of the time). 



June 20th, 2012 at 1:02 PM ^

I don't understand how that jury pool wasn't considered contaminated. I mean, yes, it was a national news story, so probably no jury could be found that hadn't heard about the allegations already. But weren't there a bunch of reports about how the jury was loaded with PSU alum, fans, etc?


June 20th, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^

It's telling that your concern is that he will get out of hock by having a jury that will support him. Remember, our justice system is Innocent until Proven Guilty.  We should be equally, if not MORE concerned that a jury might be unduly hostile towards a defendent and not give him the opportunity for a fair trial. After all, wouldn't it be worse if on top of everything else an innocent man ended up in prison?

Don't be too quick to assume that the goal of a trial is to prosecute a wrongdoer. It's to find justice. A jury poisoned EITHER WAY is a travesty.


June 20th, 2012 at 2:41 PM ^

Hey, I agree with you on that general principle.  But in this specific case, it's pretty hard to imagine any kind of impartial jury acquitting this guy, given the testimony from the alleged victims (there are eight people testifying that he sexually abused them as children), so the concern is going to be over partisanship in his favor.


June 20th, 2012 at 1:15 PM ^

The community's response to this has seemed oddly Lynchian. That seems like a strangely apt description. Kudos.

I'm pretty sure a bunch of administrators are getting charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury. I don't know if other people will be brought up on charges related to abetting via negligence (I'm not a lawyer and don't even know if that's a thing), though.

True Blue Grit

June 20th, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^

the AD and VP who lied to the Grand Jury will get their turn in the barrel.  And based on the emails that came out, I'd assume they will be heading to the slammer.  The former President may be hauled into court too.  Of course, there is also likely to be civil lawsuits against PSU by the victims and their families.  This court case is just the first act. 


June 20th, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^

The problem was that, since the judge refused to move the trial, you're pulling from a county of 150k people that has a university with 45k students and probably 5k faculty/staff. It would have been nearly impossible to filter out everyone that had any affiliation whatsoever with PSU.


June 20th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^

I haven't really followed the trial, but from how he's spoken publically about this before, I'm not sure why the defense had even considered letting this moron testify.  Last I saw him speak, the man proved he is not charismatic and seems to have an uncanny ability at making himself seem even more suspcious and guilty.

Not that any of this really matters, because from what I have heard about this trial, it'll be a OJ-esque upset if he's not found quilty.


June 20th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^

NBC didn't air the whole interview. Not even close. They aired 8 of 20 minutes, and they didn't even make the other 12 minutes available (MSNBC, CNBC, online, anything) until it came up in trial. Think this exchange of the interview from months ago might have hurt Sandusky?

By most accounts and in our opinion Costas did a great job interviewing Sandusky with only 15 minutes notice, but it turns out he did an even better job, by pointedly asking Sandusky if he was “Describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don’t necessarily abuse every young person.”

Sandusky’s reply, in part, sounds damning: “And I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped. There are many that I didn’t have — I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.’’

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillygossip/159592675.html?cmpid=15585797#ixzz1yM8UPgQg
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else


Bravo NBC, Bravo.


June 20th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^

my mouth literally hung open when I heard that played a couple days ago.  It is crazy chilling.  How the hell did that not get run?  Maybe it was too damning, and they were worried it would taint the process too much? 

Did that clip end up getting put into evidence?  I heard the clip, but never was sure if it was admitted for the jury to hear.



June 20th, 2012 at 2:29 PM ^

My impression is that the prosecution was going to use it if Sandusky testified...I don't know why the whole thing wasn't run.  It was available to the public almost immediately, though.  I remember reading it a day or so after NBC aired the edited interview. 


June 20th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

Mike McQueary makes this an unusual case in that you typically don't have third-party witnesses to child abuse.  His testimony was especially powerful, I think, given that the jury surely knows the damage that this situation has done to McQueary himself.  He had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by making up the story that he testified to.  I don't see how the defense gets around his testimony. 

OMG Shirtless

June 20th, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^

Rumor on the street (twitter) is that Pedobear held a press conference outside the courthouse.

Sidenote - Every Sandusky thread has been deleted for the past month because they turn into shitshows. Hopefully I get to watch this one for a bit.


June 20th, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^

Agree with you on avoiding any discussion of prison rape. (Honestly, it is hard to imagine why anyone would even conceive of such a thing with Sandusky. Shudder.)

However, I think the appropriate punishment for Sandusky would involve solitary confinement, both for his own protection, and so that inmates wouldn't have to deal with him. I also think that solitary would be the best way to let him reflect on life choices these many years.


June 20th, 2012 at 1:34 PM ^

I have no idea where you're going with this, but the family guy character most resembling PSU (or more appropriately, Sandusky) that you are looking for is Hubert.  Still, I have no idea what you're up to with this, but I'd thought I'd help out anyways.