The defense rested today without Jerry Sandusky taking the stand. This was probably a good gamble with prosecutors waiting to use unaired segments of interviews he conducted after the scandal broke. The coach might have had a difficult time explaining some of the comments found in them. An example:
Costas: "So it's entirely possible that you could have helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable, while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D and E. Isn't that possible?"
Sandusky: "Well, you might think that. I don't know. In terms of my relationship with so many, many young people, I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward - many more young people who would come forward - and say that my methods and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life.
"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 - hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."
That sounds a lot as if he were defending himself by saying he hadn't molested every boy he met. How noble...
Juror number 6 was excused today after falling ill. She was one of the few with no ties to the university. She is replaced with an alternate.
The defense attempted to impeach the credibility of Mike McQueary by showing he attended some Second Mile events even after finding Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse (rape) of a young boy. I don't find that unusual. If you a football coach at Penn State and not supporting The Second Mile you'd have a lot of explaining to do and it was obvious the young assistant coach was very uncomfortable discussing what he saw.
Will this jury understand human nature or believe the attacks on credibility? A case like this come s down to that issue. To believe eight young men or one coach? Closing arguments commence at 9AM Thursday morning and the case goes to the jury. I expect a quick verdict either way. Either they're convinced or they're not.