Yet, Sandusky continues to fight.
“A young man who was dramatic, a veteran accuser and always sought attention, started everything,” he said. “He was joined by a well-orchestrated effort of the media, investigators, the system, Penn State, psychologists, civil attorneys and other accusers. They won.
”I've wondered what they really won. Attention, financial gain, prestige — will all be temporary.“
Victimizer as victim: That is Sandusky's story.
The assumption has always been that there would be an appeal — because of the quick scheduling of the trial, and because of certain rulings by Cleland, particularly the decision to allow the hearsay testimony of the janitor. What was not known was if Sandusky would continue his public denials.
Now we know. And while the appeal figures to attack on legal issues, Sandusky attacked his victims.
”Evaluate the accusers and their families,“ he said. ”Realize they didn't come out of isolation. The accusers were products of many more people and experiences than me. Look at their confidants and their honesty. Think about how easy it was for them to turn on me given the information, attention and potential perks. I never labeled or put down them or their families. I tried and I cared, then asked for the same.“
Sandusky said that he did not lose to ”proven facts, evidence, accurate locations and times … We lost to speculation and stories that were influenced by people who wanted to convict me.“ He said that he can be given justice only by ”somebody apolitical with the courage to listen, to think about the unfairness, to have the guts to stand up and take the road less traveled.“
And to ignore the testimony of victims and eyewitnesses.
Victimizer as victim, then. It never ends.