Sandusky's attorneys called to Bellefonte for meeting about leaked tape, attorney says," that Judge John Cleland ordered defense "...to stop sharing evidence and say under oath what they have already shared." Was leaked tape a defense ploy and towards what end?
A defense ploy can be seen only in context where it certainly seems possible. Judge Cleland commanded defense to stop, but met responses that implied Judge's order was an act of imperial Commonwealth. Defense attorney Karl Rominger (picture, left) is reported saying "noone owned up to the leak," according to article.
It is, perhaps, more revealing defense was asked if it leaked the tape? Rominger replies to accusation with an appeal to reason, "'that would be illogical. I think the logical answer is someone who wants to impugn Jerry Sandusky further.'" It would certainly be case, if our lives and world were played straight (i.e., truthfully, honestly, sincerely)! You certainly wonder about the comments of Sandusky, attorney Joe Amendola (pictiure, right)?
Amendola compared the trial - before his client was found guilty of child abuse last week - to the soap opera, "All My Children." Ganim pointedly reports, "'at the meeting, prosecutor Joseph E. McGettigan III also asked Joe Amendola to stop saying publicly that Sandusky didn't take the stand because Matt was going to testify on rebuttal,' according to Rominger." Is Amendola really representing Sandusky or orchestrating defense to a directed end?
Would Jerry Sandusky say more on stand than anyone would want to hear? Yes, you can conclude it was meant to prevent Sandusky from incriminating himself further. An awkward meeting and accusations of leaks flung at the defense, reveals more may lie under surface than simple defense maneuvers!