The defense came on like gangbusters on this sixth day of the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse trial. From character witnesses and cops to dueling doctors and the much-anticipated testimony of the ex-coachâs wife, Dottie, the jury barely had a moment to catch its breath as they heard testimony from an astounding 21 witnesses.

The possibility that a Sandusky might take the stand has consumed much of the courtroom chatter over the last weekâand today it became a reality. Mrs. Jerry Sandusky was captivating as she appeared on the stand, clad in a light green sweater and speaking in the soft tones of a housewife. She is a small woman with a short bob, and as she settled in to the witness box, she cast a long glance at her husband and gave him a wink, a quick reassuring nod, and a smile. He returned the silent signal with a big wide grin on his face, obviously happy to see his wife in the courtroom from which she was banned on opening day.
âYou are aware of the allegations against your husband?â defense attorney Joe Amendola asked. Mrs. Sandusky simply answered, âYes.â And then Amendola ran down a list of the young accuserâs names, asking if she recognized each. There was only one name she didnât know, she said, and she admitted that most of the boys had spent nights in the Sandusky home. She also admitted that her husband âwould go down and tell them good night.â Down, that is, to the basement full of boysâ games and an adjoining bedroom with a waterbed, and the place where several accusers told the same court that they had been horribly violated.
Dottie, whose nickname is âSarge,â she said, because she is strict and expects things to run a certain way, explained that her husband went to bed before her 90 to 95 percent of the time. âI always stayed up late,â she said. Each time she was asked how many nights a particular accuser stayed overnight in her home, she stuttered and stammered.
âI...IâŚI have no idea,â she would say with an apologetic smile. âI donât remember. Iâm sorry...My memory in time is not good.â
âHow often do you go into the basement area?â her husbandâs lawyer asked, confirming she keeps a food freezer there.
âOh, once a day,â she estimated. âDuring football season, more. I make things and freeze them.â
âIs your basement soundproof?â Amendola asked.
âNo,â she answered. She laughed and shook her head.
After establishing that Mrs. Sanduskyâs hearing is intact despite her 60-plus years, Amendola asked the question on so many court watchersâ minds: âYou ever hear one of the youngsters yelling for help from the basement?â
âNo,â Dottie Sandusky said firmly.
On cross-examination, prosecutor Joe McGettigan asked whether she knew of her husbandâs 1998 run-in with the law, which involved a young boy who testified here last week. She quietly acknowledged she had become aware there were allegations that Sandusky had showered with a young boy and that his mother had called police. She learned of it, she said, âafter it happened,â and added that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had mailed the Sanduskys a letter saying no charges would be filed.
Then, the prosecutorâs zinger: McGettigan brought up each young accuser by name, as well as the name of Michael McQueary, the assistant Penn State football coach who testified he saw Sandusky raping a young boy in the universityâs showers in February 2001.
âDo you know any reason why these young people and Mike McQueary would lie?â he asked.
The courtroom went quiet. Finally, Dottie Sandusky stammered, âIâŚIâŚI donât know what it would be for.â
Prior to Mrs. Sandusky, the defenseâs other star witness was Dr. Elliot Atkins, a psychologist who specializes, in part, in treating people with personality disorders. His conclusions, too, would not go unchallenged.
âMr. Sandusky clearly meets the criteria for Histrionic Personality Disorder,â the witness told the jury. They stared blankly back. For the two hours, the courtroom morphed into a lecture hall, with Dr. Atkins referencing a PowerPoint presentation on the courtâs big screen as he attempted to explain the disorder, also known as HPD. It refers to people, he explained, who act in ways to ensure they are always the center of attentionâwhich could include inappropriate sexual behavior. âThey toss out old relations for the excitement of new ones,â said Dr. Atkins. âThey may embarrass others by excessive public displays of affection.â They are, he said, serial huggers who often have impaired relationships with same-sex companions.
The defenseâs implication was clear: Jerry Sandusky is not a pedophile but a misunderstood man whose âexcessiveâ emotions had raised false alarms.
Atkins based his findings on grand jury transcripts; two commonly used psychological personality tests he administered to Sandusky during a six-hour evaluation; a copy of Sanduskyâs own book Touched; and a stack of letters the defendant wrote to alleged victim No. 4âa young man who had claimed that Sandusky treated him âlike his girlfriendâ and stalked him when he tried to pull away. Dr. Atkins revealed that he charges $375 per hour.
The prosecutionâs expert, Dr. John Sebastian OâBrien, studied the same material and spent about two and a half hours evaluating Sandusky on Fatherâs Day. Asked whether he thought the two tests showed Sandusky suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder, OâBrien stated flatly that one of the tests had concluded he did not. The other psychological test concluded that Sanduskyâs personality was âwithin the normal limits,â according to Dr. OâBrien, and his own opinion was that since the defendant is so high-functioning that he couldnât possibly suffer from HPD.
âIt is my opinion that [HPD] doesnât exist in this case.â
âCould it be that a different diagnosis is present?â McGettigan prodded.
âYes,â said Dr. OâBrien.
âWould one be a psycho-sexual disorder with a specific attraction to adolescents?â
âYes it would,â the Dr. said in a firm tone of voice. But he was quick to add that âitâs still unprovenâbased only on pre-trial evidence.â
Dr. OâBrien makes $450 per hour; at the end of the day, few observers would dispute he was worth every penny to the prosecution.
It was a whirlwind day in court. In the dayâs first hour alone, the defense presented 11 witnesses in rapid succession, each one testifying about Sanduskyâs character. There were former campers from his Second Mile Charity, former neighbors, and members of his church, St. Paulâs United Methodist. To each witness, defense attorney Amendola asked a variation of the same question: âPrior to these charges being filed, did you know Mr. Sandusky to be a law-abiding, truthful, peaceful, non-violent person?â
At the defense table, Jerry Sandusky smiled broadly at his friends. Each one said yes.
âAnd what what was his reputation in the community?â Amendola repeatedly asked.
âExcellent. Among my children and grandchildren, Jerry Sandusky is a father figure. Heâs also respected for what he did professionally,â church member Jack Willenbrock told the jury.
âHe was a very respected man in the community for all heâs done for the children,â a former Second Mile camper said with a smile.
âAll the people I know think Jerry is a wonderful man,â said Sandusky family friend Joyce Porter, who described how kind the former Penn State coach and his wife have been to her 14 children, five of whom are adopted. Porter said her son Matt, who has Down Syndrome, is especially fond of the Sanduskys. When asked, âWhoâs the best?â she said, her son enthusiastically replies, âJerrr-eee!â As Porter crossed back to take a seat in the spectators section, she patted Sandusky on the back.
âThanks to Jerry, half my [college] tuition was paid,â 28-year-old Kelly Jo Simco said, looking at the jury to make sure they had noted Sanduskyâs kindness.
Lance Mehl, a former Penn State football player and retired New York Jet, was asked to describe Sanduskyâs previous reputation. In a deep booming voice, the player-turned-probation officer replied, âVery good! We all looked up to him. He is a class act.â
Aside from defending their clientâs character, the defense team also sought to discredit his accusers. Two Pennsylvania state troopers, Colonel Scott Rossman and the retired Corporal Joseph Leiter, were questioned about the technique they used in questioning the â50 or 60â young men contacted during the initial Sandusky investigation.
But it was one interviewed in particular that Amendola was interested in, zeroing in on a 16-minute section of a recording the troopers made of their initial interview with alleged victim No. 4, who is 28 years old. The recorder was inadvertently left on when the young man had stepped out to have a cigarette. During a casual discussion with the No. 4âs lawyer, Corporal Leiter is heard agreeing to tell the nervous accuser when he returns that he was not the only one revealing graphic, sexual things about Sandusky. Sanduskyâs team believes that tainted the young manâs revelations.
âYou mentioned [to accuser No. 4] rape, oral sex, and other activities you got from other accusers, right?â defense attorney Karl Rominger asked.
âYes,â the corporal said. âBut nothing more specific than that.â
The jurors bowed their heads and seemed to listen intently to the audio tape. Juror No. 8âdubbed Mr. Rogers by the mediaâput his hand to his mouth and concentrated on a spot on the floor. Juror No. 4, in the back row, closed his eyes while listening. Others took a few notes. It was impossible to tell if the panel was buying Amendolaâs âtainted witnessâ argument.
They also heard a childhood friend of accuser No. 4 describe him as being âa dishonest person who embellished stories.â
Meanwhile, in a salvo directed at discrediting alleged victim No. 1, a next door neighbor testified that the boyâs mother, upon learning that her son may have been molested by Sandusky, exclaimed, âI will own his house!â At another time, Josh Fravel told the jury, she said, âWhen this is over [Iâll] have a nice big house in the country where her dogs could run free.â Fravel said the boy told him, âWhen this is all over Iâll have a nice new Jeep.â
Keeping up the trialâs astonishing pace, the jury is expected to begin deliberating on Thursday after closing arguments. The prosecutionâs brief rebuttal is expected to include a newly discovered, un-aired clip from an interview Sandusky gave to NBCâs Bob Costas in Novemberâone that many legal experts consider to have been ill-advised. In one unaired portion, Sandusky rambles into what could be construed as a self-incriminating statement.
âI didnât go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that Iâve helped,â he says. âThere are many that I didnât have...I hardly had any contact with, who I have helped in many, many ways.â