Bearing Witness: The Trial of Jerry Sandusky (Day 6)
Sorry for the very late hour, and apologies in advance for what will be a long and convoluted post. This has been a wild day, with plenty of drama both inside and outside the courtroom. I have done my best to put it together in a somewhat coherant manner.
Centre County Courthouse has officially become a madhouse. Apparently, word got out that public passes were available to the trial, and a cadre of voyeuristic locals have descended like locusts. As a result, when I arrived this morning at my usual time, I was told that all of the public passes were long gone-so I did not get a chance to see the morning proceedings. I am writing the synopsis of them based off of friend’s notes, as well as a few newspaper accounts.
There have been so many of these, and their testimony has been so repetitive that I will not even waste my time giving a synopsis. Suffice it to say, these were all friends, co-workers, neighbors and former Second Mile kids who basically all attested that Jerry Sandusky was a wonderful person with a great reputation, and had never personally molested them.
There were a couple interesting witnesses among them, however. From the Trial Notes:
Megan Lynn Rash takes the stand. She is from Milesburg. “You look about 12, how old are you?” Rash is 25 years old and pregnant. She was in the Second Mile for about four years and started when she was in elementary school. She said it was an amazing experience. Rash enrolled in the military after high school and spent a year in Iraq. She was honorably discharged a year ago. Rash has known Victim 4 for about 18 years. She said he is known well in the community and has a reputation. She said his reputation was that, “He was a dishonest person and embellished stories.” On cross-examination, Rash revealed that she was related to a young man whose name has been mentioned several times throughout the trial but who died in 2008. We don’t know how he died.
Well, actually we do know how he died. And that makes this choice of witness pretty shocking. But more on that later.
9:31 a.m. – Joyce Porter is called to the stand. She has been sitting in the courtroom. She lives in State College with her husband in children. She has 14 children, 9 naturally and the others by adoption and foster care. She said she would see Sandusky a couple of times a year. Porter said she was good friends with Dottie. “He was always busy as a football coach…once in a while we’d do something with our husbands.” When asked about Sandusky’s reputation, Porter said, “All the people I know who know Jerry think he’s a wonderful man.” On cross-examination she revealed that she has a son who has Down syndrome who Dottie and Jerry were very kind to. She steps off the stand and took a seat back in the courtroom. On her way back to her seat, she patted Sandusky on the shoulder.
Joyce Porter is making quite the name for herself lately. She was first profiledby Dan Wetsel at Yahoo Sports last week and then seemed to really be enjoying the spotlight today outside the courthouse-I thought Britney Spears had arrived or something, but apparently it was just this loon.
She appeared on Anderson Cooper tonight. I’m sure she will have her own reality show before long.
Now, back to the mornings testimony…
Trooper Scott S.C. Rossman was called to the stand first. He was one of the lead investigators on the Sandusky case since May or June of 2009. He interviewed Victims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 and three more that he did not name. He also interviewed Mike McQueary.
Amendola asked if the boys he interviewed first told him nothing happened or something minimal happened-which he confirmed was the case. Amendola then asked if Rossman had told the people he interviewed that other victims had brought charges. He said he may have. He asked if he felt more occurred than what the alleged victims told him.
“Did I ever think more occurred than what they told me? Absolutely” Rossman said, and testified that he had told them this.
Amendola asked if he ever thought he was tainting the investigation, to which he responded “no”. Rossman also said he remembered interviewing Victim 4 and his attorney, Ben Andreozzi, and that it was uncommon for attorneys to come to these types of interviews.
Corporal Joseph A. Leiter took the stand next. He has was a cop for over 26 years, and became actively involved with the Sandusky investigation in January of 2011. He interviewed a number of potential witnesses, including Mike McQueary and Victims 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9.
Leiter said with some alleged victims the initial interview revealed nothing. “In some point in our interviews, we did tell them that” others had come forward to accuse Sandusky, Leiter admitted. “Each of these accusers was very, very seriously injured and very concerned and we had told them, especially prior to going to grand jury that they wouldn’t be alone, there were others.
Leiter said they never told them specifics of what any other victims had told them, “We just told them there were others,” he said. Leiter said they had a difficult locating Victim 4; he said when he first got Victim 4′s address he knocked on the door and Victim 4 answered. He refused to talk to Leiter and said he wanted to talk to his lawyer before talking to police.
Leiter said he never told potential alleged victims how many others were involved. Amendola asked Leiter if he recalled telling Andreozzi during a break in an interview that when Victim 4 came back he would tell him there were others so he could get the information he needed. Leiter said he did not.
On cross-examination, Leiter said he never told anyone what to say, or that they had to say anything at all. He recalled that when he went to Victim 4′s home, “He was very, very reluctant [to talk]. I can recall he crawled up in the fetal position on the end of his couch,”
Both men were dismissed from the stand, but Amendola asked that they stay around in case they needed to be recalled. After a few more character witnesses, they were-and this is where it started to get pretty ugly.
2 pertinent issues arose during their recall testimony. The first was the issue of a recording that was made, apparently by accident, during a break in the interview when they were supposed to be off the record. This came up during the testimony of Victim #4’s civil attorney, Ben Andreozzi, who was present during the interview which took place in April of 2011. After Andreozzi took the stand, Amendola read from the transcript of a tape that was played for the jury-first, reading a portion spoken by Andreozzi:
“Oh you’re kidding. The time frame is matching up. Can we at some point in time say ‘We have interviewed other kids … they’ve admitted it. Is there anything else you want to tell us?’”
Andreozzi said he did not recall saying, but didn’t dispute that it was his voice on the tape. He said Victim #4 told him something else had happened, but he was not comfortable talking about it.
Amendola continued, reading the portion of the transcript from when Victim #4 was back in the room. Here is what it said:
“Before you start again I just want to let you know, you’re not the first victim we’ve spoken to. We interviewed about nine … and you’re doing very well. You have been repeating word for word pretty much what other people have been telling us. A lot of what you’ve told us is very similar … there is a pretty well defined progression of how he operates … especially when it goes on for an extended period of time, leads to more than touching and feeling … leads to oral sex. I don’t want you to feel ashamed because you are a victim in this whole thing. What happened happened. He took advantage of you. We’re not going to look at you any differently … but we need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place.”
This is problematic because it contradicts the testimony of Leiter, and could also be construed as planting a story in Victim #4’s head because it is so specific about the sexual acts that other victims had come forward with.
The second issue regarded their testimony after they were recalled to the stand. Amendola asked Trooper Ross, and then Trooper Leiter, if they had discussed the case and their testimony while they were waiting in the back to be called back in. Trooper Ross said they had not-Trooper Leiter stated they had. Amendola asked Trooper Leiter if that meant Trooper Ross was lying-but the question was cut off, as Judge Cleland said this was up to the jury to decide.
The prosecution team and spectators (who are largely on the side of the victims) looked noticeably disturbed and upset as they left the courtroom.
Did I mention Centre County Court is a frickin madhouse? When court recessed for lunch, I finally got my public pass and decided to go into the courtroom right at the beginning of the lunch break, since occasionally interesting things happen during this time. I was sitting there minding my business waiting for the recess to end when a woman walked straight up to me and demanded that I move, accusing me of stealing their seat. This was literally at the same time that the court was set to reconvene, and I was already situated with my rather elaborate set-up that I use to take notes, so I politely refused and reminded her that there was no assigned seating. Furthermore, there were plenty of other seats for her to choose from. Long story short, she and her friend challenged me to a physical fight over this nonsense-trash talking me and asking if I wanted to “take it outside”. At this I turned around and said “I am a sexual abuse survivor, I’m here for the victims. Please remember what this trial is about.” The woman looked straight at me and said “I’m a victim too. I live in State College-we are ALL victims”.
No, honey child. You are not. Anyways…
After we reconvened, two more character witnesses were called. Both affirmed that Jerry is super-duper awesome and never molested them personally. Then Amendola called the mother of Victim #1 to the stand.
Mother of Victim #1
Recall that victim #1 is the young man who testified on day two. Her questioning was short and relatively to the point-Amendola asked her if she, at one point, lived next door (in a two-family home) to a man named Josh Frabel. She confirmed that she had. He asked if she had ever made a comment to Mr. Fevell that after the case was finished she was going to make “a lot of money, have a big house in the country with a white picket fence, and be a very wealthy person”. Note that Victim #1 was asked a similar question during his cross examination. Like him, the mother denied this.
On cross, McGeddigan asked her when she retained an attorney, and what prompted this. She testified that she retained her civil attorney in November of 2011, after Joshua Frabel had leaked her name and address to a reporter, and had tried to get money off of her for keeping her new address (she had to move after the scandal broke) a secret. Josh Frabel was called next.
Joshua Frabel is a slimeball. I’m sorry but there is simply no other way to put it. He came across as very unlikeable and untrustworthy-in short, exactly the kind of person you would expect to blackmail the family of a sexual abuse victim. He testified about the conversation he claims took place between him and Victim #1’s mother-saying that in 2008 she had come to his home and asked him how to find out if someone was a registered sex offender. When he asked why she needed this information, she allegedly said that Victim #1 had just disclosed that he was “touched” by Jerry Sandusky, and that she wanted to take it further. According to him, she then stated “by the time this settles out, I’ll own his house”. He also testified that on a separate occasion, Victim #1 told him “when this is over, I will have a new Jeep”.
On cross, he admitted that he had personal animus towards Victim #1’s mother, and that he thought she was a bad mother and a bad person. He said that he often overheard fights between Victim #1 and his mother, and once heard her say “You’re going to the Second Mile because you are not going to fuck up my weekend”. Victim #1 never talked to him about what happened. He admitted that he did talk to reporters, and did disclose where the family lived. He also admitted that in February of this year, he applied for a job where Victim #1’s mother held a management position, and was denied employment-and that he felt she was behind this.
Dr. Elliot Atkins
First, judge Cleland explained how this witness would differ from other witnesses they had seen. “The purpose of this testimony, which you are about to hear” he said, “is to offer an explanation concerning the letters which you have previously seen projected on the screen.” He said this expert testimony could only be used to explain the letters and the motivation of the defendant in writing the letters. The defense then called
Colonel SandersDr. Elliot Atkins to the stand. Dr. Atkins is Penn State alum, holds dual doctorates in psychology and education and many decades of experience. He was hired by the defense to evaluate Jerry Sandusky-or, more specifically, the “creepy love letters” he sent to Victim #4.
Dr. Atkins evaluation was based primarily on two standardized tests-the Minnesota Multi Facet Personality Inventory (MMFPI) and the Milan Inventory of Personality Structure. Additionally, he spent 6 hours interviewing Jerry Sandusky, and approximately one hour with his wife. He also studied the materials introduced during discovery, the statements by the victims (he called them “accusers”), the book “Touched” written by Sandusky, the letters in question, and transcripts of the Grand Jury report. Based on his findings, he diagnosed Jerry Sandusky with Histrionic Personality Disorder.
He showed a slide detailing Histrionic Personality Disorder as detailed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:
Histrionic Personality DisorderA pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: (1) is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the center of attention (2) interaction with others is often characterized by inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior (3) displays rapidly shifting and shallow expression of emotions (4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to self (5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and lacking in detail (6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion (7) is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or circumstances (8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are
Atkins further read: “Often inappropriately sexually provocative or seductive, but occurs in a wide variety of social, occupational, beyond what is appropriate in the social context. Exaggerated expression of emotion … they may see to control their partner … often have impaired relationships with same-sex friends because of their sexual acting out behavior.”
Someone with this disorder would have the need for attention approval, respect, admiration and intimacy. Their behavior would be attention seeking, seductive, impulsive, manipulative, erratic or demanding. If their expectations were not met, someone with this disorder would likely feel hurt, taken for granted betrayed abandoned or used and would desperately attempt to maintain or re-establish that relationship. If these attempts are thwarted, this person would likely become critical of the rejecting parties.
He stated that he made this diagnosis before reading the letters in question-but that reading them only made him more confident in his diagnosis.
Atkins then read aloud a letter that Sandusky allegedly wrote to Victim #4-in the letter he talks about “a churning in my stomach when I realize you don’t care.” And how he “still hopes there will be meaning” to his relationship, and laments that “I seem to be an inconvenience” and that Victim #4 has “left a trail of broken promises” in his wake. Atkins testified that this was an example of Sandusky’s hurt and disappointment in the face of unmet expectations, and that his admission that he “lets his feelings out” is consistent with a histrionic personality-which is very emotionally expressive. In the letter he also compares himself to Forrest Gump, saying that he is “naïve and not very bright”. Atkins testified that self-deprecating behavior is common among histrionics, because underlying their sense of entitlement is a deep insecurity and lack of self-confidence. Therefore they are likely to reach out to people who would be more likely to look up to and admire them than their peers.
On cross, Atkins testified that he was retained by the defense and paid a fee of $375 an hour. McGeddigan asked him if it one of the objective tests he administered showed that Sandusky did NOT have a personality disorder. Atkins seemed evasive here, and a bit tripped up-saying “it’s not that simple”
McGeddigan also confronted him about the fact that In the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, histrionic personality disorder will be collapsed into other personality disorders.
He then had Dr. Atkins read the explanation of Personality disorders from the DSM-IV: “A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of behavior that deviates markedly from the person’s culture … has an onset in adolescent in adulthood … and levels out over time.”
MGeddigan asked him how it would be possible for Jerry Sandusky to have such a debilitating disorder and yet never have it diagnosed before age 68, never have received psychiatric treatment for it, and yet still have the ability to earn a Bachelor’s Degree, a Master’s Degree, a 42 year marriage, and a 20 year career as one of the most high profile coaches in college sports. Atkins said that some people with personality disorders can be very “high functioning”
McGeddigan then turned to the letters again-in particular the letter with the open questions, addressed towards Victim #4. He asked if this letter could possibly be consistent with another diagnosis-a psychosexual disorder that involves sexual contact with adolescents.
“I can’t go that far” said Dr. Atkins. “There is no clear pattern of that”. Although he did admit that if the evidence was proven, there would be.
Amendola called Dottie Sandusky to the stand next. She was wearing a bright green sweater set and looked noticeably frailer than she has appeared in the past. She smiled at Jerry as she took the stand.
In response to Amendola’s questioning, she gave some background information on how she met Jerry-who she has been married to for 45 years (46 in September). They found that they were unable to have children of their own, and adopted 6 children: Ray, E.J., Kara, Jeff, John and Matt. Amendola asked her how she got the nickname “Sarge.” She said: “I’m strict and I like for things to run a certain way and we expect a lot from our kids.” She said that Jerry’s typical work schedule had him away from home for about 12 hours a day, and that he often went up to his study to work when he was home.
Dottie said she forgets the year The Second Mile was founded but she said prior to that they had taken in foster children and then found the need to create a foundation. Dottie said Sandusky was gone from home a lot. “He would travel with the team when the team traveled … on Sundays we would go to church, have lunch and then he would disappear for the rest of the afternoon because he had meetings.”
“He would come home at 6:30 or 7 o’clock on Friday he would come spend time with some children…our children that were around…if there were some kids coming to football games he would pick them up, he would go to the stadium.” Sundays they would go to church and then out to lunch. Then Jerry would go to work until at least 7 o’clock at night.
On Fridays Jerry would often spend time with children from the 2nd Mile-sometimes in groups, sometimes with one child. Sleepovers were somewhat common during football season, and the children had a choice of where to sleep-in the basement bedroom, or on the upper floors. Children would sleep over once or twice a month. She was asked about certain victims-whether or not she knew them, and how often they spent time in her home.
Victim 1-Dottie said she knew him because he was a Second Mile child who used to come visit their house. She had no idea how many times he had stayed over their house but it was not every weekend.
Victim 6-Dottie said she knew Victim #6- He stayed over their house. When asked what years she said: “It would be…I…I don’t remember, I’m sorry,” she stammered.
Victim 4-Dottie said she knew him from the Second Mile, and said he stayed over an average of maybe once a month. When asked during what year, she said: “I’m sorry, I’m not really good with years.”
With Victim 5 she said: “I vaguely remember the name, I may have met him once or twice.”
Victim 7 stayed over their house “maybe a month..I, I don’t know…I’m sorry.”
Victim 9 stayed over at her house, but she said she didn’t think it was as frequent as twice a month.
She said she didn’t know who Victim 10 was.
She said Victim 4 went to the Outback and Alamo Bowl with her family, and that he was the only child, other than their own, that they brought with them. She said she, Jerry, their son Matt and Victim 4 traveled together and stayed in adjoining rooms in a hotel-Matt and Victim 4 staying in once room and she and Jerry in the other. The door was kept propped open. At the other bowl game, Dottie, Jerry, and victim #4 all stayed in a one-room place.
Amendola brought up the testimony of Victim #4, who said that Dottie had walked in on him and Jerry in the bathroom at the Alamo Bowl as Jerry was sexually abusing him and asked “what is going on in there?”
“I came in one day … and they were…there was a bathroom and there’s a dressing room…and” she explained. Jerry was upset. “We had asked (edit) if he wanted to go to the luncheon , which was $50 to go to … and (edit) refused to go and Jerry knew I was going to be very upset that we had spent the money and he wouldn’t go,” she said. Amendola asked what they were wearing. “They were just standing in the room…they had their clothes on, they were fully clothed, both of them…” She continued: “I know Jerry was mad because the way he looked he said ‘We did this for you, you’ve got to do this,’ in reference to the banquet. We had our own children and our grandchildren and we took him to the bowl game with us, we had to pay for his plane ticket, his food” Amendola asked if Victim #4 ever went to the banquet-she answered that he had not.
Amendola asked her about her husband’s upbringing. She said Jerry grew up in a recreation center run by his parents and “there were always children around.”
Dottie also testified that there was a freezer in the basement, and that she would go down at least once but usually twice a day-especially during football season. She also said that her basement was not sound proof (something that Victim #9 had insinuated when he talked about how he screamed for help) She also said that she had good hearing, and that if someone was in the basement she would her them-especially if they were yelling. She said that she never heard anything of the kind.
Amendola then asked if she ever saw inappropriate contact between Jerry and Victim #1. After a very long pause she said: “Not really inappropriate contact, there was one time that we were watching TV…and all of the sudden, just in the middle of the show, he jumps off and runs and jumps in the chair with Jerry.” She spoke of another occasion when Jerry had gotten a call from Victim #1’s mother asking if they would like to go see him wrestle. When they arrived, Victim 1 “ran clear across the room and jumped up and hugged Jerry.” Dottie said she did not see any inappropriate contact between Jerry and the other alleged victims. She confirmed that she knew about the 1998 report, and said it was her understanding “That Jerry had showered with [Victim 6] and that it had been investigative and that his mother had called him over to talk …and a few days later we received a letter from the state saying there were no charges.”
Dottie testified that the last time she saw Victim 6 was last summer when he went out to dinner with the Sandusky’s to the Crackle Barrel. They talked about how Bible school was going and how his mission trip went, and she described it as a very pleasant visit. They gave him financial help for a mission trip he took recently, and he recently borrowed their car.
She last saw victim 7 about 1 and a half years ago at a movie theater where he worked, and had a conversation with him there.
She testified that she never saw any inappropriate behavior between Sandusky and Victim #9, and that the last time she saw him was when he and a friend attended a football game with them this past fall (2011).
She last saw Victim 4 about 2-3 years ago, when he came to her home to “show off” his baby. This is something that one of the character witnesses (and one of Dottie’s best friends) testified to earlier-down to details about them buying Kentucky Fried Chicken. It sounded incredibly rehearsed.
Dottie said. She said Victim 4 would stay over at different frequencies depending on Jerry’s schedule. In regards to the number of times he would have stayed in a six month period in 1999: “I have no idea, I’m sorry.” “He would stay, but I wouldn’t call it frequent.” In regards to where they would sleep, she said, “They had a choice to stay wherever they wanted to stay, as I said before we have a bedroom in the basement, a bedroom on the first floor and a bedroom upstairs.”
Dottie was asked if she went to sleep before or after Sandusky. “I…I mean, I stay up late…I haven’t lately…I mean, I used to stay up late,” she said. “I don’t think I did go to bed before Jerry goes to bed….he would go down and tell them good night, I would tell them goodnight.”
McGettigan then showed Dottie a picture of Victim #4 and asked if he was a good kid: “It was..I mean…He had his problems.” She sad. “He was very demanding and he was very conniving and he wanted his way and he didn’t listen a whole lot.”
Of Victim #1: “[Victim #1]was very clingy to Jerry. (He) would never look people in the eye, not just me, not just Jerry.”
Of Victim #7: “He was a very nice…he was…[Victim 7] was nice, he was great.”
Of Victim 9: “He was a charmer, he knew what to say, when to say it,” Dottie said. She said she was aware his mom was a single mom but that was all she knew about his home life.
McGettigan asked her if she knew Mike McQueary: “He played football with our one son” she said. “I knew him that way.” He asked if she knew any reason why he would lie. After a long pause, she said “I don’t know, you would have to ask him” McGettigan then asked her why the boys would lie. She paused for a while and said, “I…I..I don’t know what it would be for.
Dr. Atkins gets pwnd by Dr. O’Brian
Because the defense had opened the door with their expert witness, the prosecution was able to call a rebuttal witness. They called John Sebastian O’Brian II, a psychiatrist, medical doctor and lawyer. He is a forensic psychiatrist on salary with the Philadelphia criminal court, and a backup mental health screener with the Philadelphia board of pensions, among many other positions. He has seen thousands of patients by his own estimation, and is certified as an expert witness. He evaluated Jerry Sandusky over father’s day-interviewing him in person for about 4 hours, as well as reviewing the report made by Dr. Atkins and the other evidence in the case.
He began by saying that he was “perplexed” by Atkins testimony-in particular, the Minnesota Multi Axial Inventory. It did NOT indicate that Sandusky had a personality disorder-in fact, the computer generated report said that Sandusky’s profile was “within normal limits”. It did suggest that he may have “mild histrionic traits”, but also had a warning to assess and accept the results with caution.
O’Brian stated that the test could not be interpreted at face value because the indications of consciousness/defensiveness showed that Mr. Sandusky based many of his responses on how he expected the results to be used, and out of fear that they may be used against him and be damaging. Within that context, O’Brian testified, the results were far from definitive and could not be taken at face value. The other test (the Milan Inventory) showed that Sandusky was “presenting himself in an overly favorable manner”. It showed Histrionic Personality Disorder-but also included possible Axis II diagnoses of Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder and Narcissistic personality disorder.
O’Brian said he was also struck by how Atkins reviewed the DSM-IV criteria. Personality disorders, he explained, present at a very early age and trip you up, preventing you from making achievements. The symptoms are severe enough to cause difficulties with functioning, and distress. In interviewing Mr. Sandusky, he did not detect any distress. Furthermore, Sandusky’s own history reveals him to be highly functioning-a committed worker, a father, someone who spent time with his family and achieved great success. Furthermore, a person with Histrionic Personality Disorder has to be the center of attention at all times. It would be implausible to think that someone with this disorder would be content to stay on the sidelines-say, as an assistant coach who is routinely upstaged by his boss.
In one of his statements about his upbringing, Sandusky described his parents in glowing terms, describing their selfless commitment to kids and the disabled. Someone with Histrionic Personality disorder, by contrast, would likely be upset that his parents were focusing on others but not on him. Furthermore, his desire to follow in his father’s footsteps and form the Second Mile was not consistent with a Histrionic personality. O’Brian said that the letters had been misconstrued. His interpretation of the letters themselves was that they reflected a disappointment and emotional upset over a change in a relationship. Instead of being self-focused, as you would see with a histrionic personality, he tries to engage the reader by asking questions, and by referring to other people. O’Brian stated that the letters were written in a very “adolescent” way, and do not read as a letter that would typically be sent from an adult to a child. They contain the illusion that Sandusky and the child he is writing to are on the same plane, understand each other and think alike. He concludes that, in his opinion, the letters are highly manipulative, designed to sway the intentions and behaviors of the recipient in a certain way.
When asked by McGeddigan if there was another diagnosis that might be present, he said that he believed that it was-the diagnosis of a psychosexual disorder involving an attraction to adolescents.
I’m pretty exhausted and my head is still spinning, so I don’t have much in the way of impressions.
I think the state troopers have hindered the case, and I’m very concerned about the ramifications of their testimony. I think Dottie did much better on the stand than anyone expected-she came across as a sweet little old lady, like everyones grandma, and it’s hard to think that your grandma would lie. Much easier to think some punk 20-something kid who has a checkered past would be dishonest.
I do think that their “Histrionic Personality Disorder” defense flopped, and ultimately backfired. Dr. O’Brian’s testimony was very compelling and really drove home the point that Jerry Sandusky is all about his self-image, and is willing to be deceptive in order to preserve it. His statement that Sandusky, in his professional opinion, suffered from a psychosexual disorder was also damaging.
Still, I’m a lot more nervous about the case today than I was yesterday.
Finally I am fuming at the defense team -in particular Amendola-but I will have to explain why in another diary. Suffice it to say, if you thought they were slimy now…ugh. Just wait.