[old and tired]

I hope that they will convict the sob. but I don’t have much, if any, confidence that they will.

Nor do I. Why is the prosecution putting all this stuff out there now? Shouldn't it have gone out at trial? Sandusky's son testifying against him would've been huge.

[Centaur]

News reports are that he didn't tell the prosecutors about the abuse until after they rested. They couldn't have reopened their case in chief, but could have used him in rebuttal. He is not relevant rebuttal unless Sandusky takes the stand and says he never abused a child. Probably why Sandusky didn't take the stand....the son would then have been an awesome rebuttal witness.

[txrangerette]

Sandusky’s son did not want to finally tell the truth but he felt compelled to as the other victims told the jury their stories.

He didn’t want to take the stand with his father sitting right there, but made clear he would, if he had to, to help convict the creep.

They were going to use him to refute Sandusky’s testimony if he dared take the stand. That’s how it would become relevant...they would ask Sandusky if he ever did anything to any of his kids like these men are alleging he did to them. He would deny it, then they would bring his son on.

They warned his lawyers that this would happen if they dared put Sandusky on the stand.

His lawyers decided not to risk that, and they ended their case.

It was a poker game and the defense folded.

[txrangerette]

According to info I saw while searching google, the letter WAS read into the trial record by the witness on the stand who was the one Sandusky sent the letter to.

You thought the letter was hidden from the jury then released to the public?

Apparently not...it was part of the trial if what I read was correct.

[GSWarrior]

I disagree. Sandusky is toast. Take it to the bank.