![]() |
| Gene J. Puskar AP |
She was a single mom working two jobs and thought her son had been given a wonderful opportunity. On several occasions, he returned home with no underwear after his sleepovers, always claiming that he had thrown away the underwear because he'd had an accident. Her testimony was laced with tears as she told the jury that Victim 9 had developed stomach problems and had difficulty sleeping. She recounted an occasion when her son had called her to pick hi up and was waiting outside with no shoes. Sandusky was not waiting with him.
When the defense began its case, two Penn State retired assistant coaches testified that it was routine for boys to shower in the coaches locker room and that it was common for coaches to shower with young people. Danger! Danger! Ham on Wry could understand if the young boys, not Penn State athletes, showered in a separate are, but together? That's totally inappropriate. If that testimony was designed to mitigate Sandusky's so-called "horsing round" in the shower with a young boy, an incident reported to Penn State officials, it failed.
Ham on Wry closes with a pointed question. If Sandusky's actions had no inappropriate overtones, why did Penn State ban him from taking young boys into the shower room beginning in 2001?

0 comments:
Post a Comment