Jerry Sandusky Defense Ignores Detailed Accusations


The mother Victim 9 testified through tears that she felt responsible for pushing her son to spend time with the coach because "he was Jerry Sandusky. He was an important guy."

The woman said that she never asked her son, who testified last week that he was raped by Sandusky, what exactly happened to him in Sandusky's basement during the sleepovers he said he had every weekend for nearly four years.

On Thursday, Victim 9, who is now 18, said that he was repeatedly forced to perform oral sex on Sandusky and be sodomized by Sandusky in the coach's basement. The testimony followed seven other witnesses who said they were sexually abused by Sandusky.

"I just can't imagine what happened to him," the mother said today through sobs.

"Do you feel responsible?" the prosecutor asked.

"Yes I do," she said.

The mother said that her son called her once from Sandusky's house asking her to pick him up immediately because he was feeling sick. In his testimony Thursday, Victim 9 said he called his mom for help once when Sandusky was sexually abusing him, but did not tell his mother the reason for the call.

Victim 9's mother testified that he suffered medical problems during ages 15, 16, and 17 when he had severe stomach problems and trouble going to the bathroom. She said he also never put his underwear into the laundry, always telling his mother that he had an accident and threw them out.

On Thursday, Amendola questioned Victim 9 about rectal bleeding and stains on his underwear. The boy said his mother never saw stains and that he "just dealt with it."

The trial began today with a surprising statement from Judge John Cleland saying he had doubts about the strength of the prosecution's case, but at this point in the trial is convinced that there is enough credible evidence that the charges should go to a jury. His comments were made while the jury was out of the courtroom.

Cleland's statements of doubt about the state's case contrasted with his consistent dismissal of motions by the defense to have charges dropped against Sandusky. Since Sandusky's arrest in November, Amendola has repeatedly complained to Cleland that the charges against his client were too broad and too vague to be defended in court. Cleland dismissed Amendola's complaints repeatedly, but said today even he wondered whether the alleged charges were too vague.

"I've been concerned about this since the beginning," Cleland said. "There were very broad representations made by the Commonwealth on the bill of particulars. Since then, the Commonwealth has submitted an amended bill of particulars, and amended their information, which I believe now meets the standards of due process. Although early on I certainly was not persuaded that that was the case."

Cleland's statements followed a morning of legal wrangling over whether some of the counts of sex abuse against Sandusky should be tossed today, as the prosecution wraps up its case. The prosecution is expected to rest following one additional witness, who will take the stand at 10 a.m.

Sandusky's lawyers argued that the charges against him were too broad and vague because they lacked specific dates and locations, and gave Sandusky no shot at a good defense because he could not use alibis to prove that he was somewhere else.

  • 1
  • |
  • 2
  • |
  • 3
  • |
  • 4
Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like...