But it's certainly not much consolation for the now-young men whose lived Coach Sandusky damaged profoundly, in ways that are close to incomprehensible to most people who've never endured the misfortune of such emotional and psychological trauma.

I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you that four decades after the fact, I still find it find it terribly difficult -- if not often next to impossible -- to confide personally in otherwise close acquaintances, particularly other men, because I learned from my experience at age 12 that some men had their own private agenda, and thus I could never fully trust them.

Child abuse is a "gift" that will keep on giving throughout one's own lifetime. As a victim, you can learn to compartmentalize as a coping mechanism, which most of us have done and will continue to do, and you can do your damnedest to ensure that you don't ever do the same thing to your own children, should you have some of your own.

But trust me, the experience never really leaves you alone, and you can never truly "get over it." Never. All you can do is learn to cope, and move on.

In what we used to call "petting," men would start with innocent touching, such as massaging your shoulders, or putting their hand on your knee. They didn't just grab your breast or crotch right away.  

"Disadvantaged" women, including the poor and/or mentally troubled, are vulnerable to predatory men.  

It's only fairly recently, in the last few decades, that people even started using the term "child abuse" (speaking of societal taboos). And of course, we still have quarters in the Liberatarian crowd who, to this day, defend the use of child labor in parts of the world (and of course, if child workers are o.k, then why not child "sex workers"..?)

A measure of how much these discussion taboos have still held, to me, was when Dr Jeffrey Masson was excommunicated from the Freudian community in the eighties for stating the obvious fact that Freud, in his illustrious career, never discussed the significance of incest or child abuse other than in the context of children's sexual fantasies about their parents. To Freudian cultists Masson's critique could mean only one thing: Masson secretly hated his Father..

"It is good for a man who thinks seriously, seriously to face his fellows, and speak out whatever really burns in him, so that men may seem less strange to one another, and misunderstanding, the fruitful cause of aimless strife, may be avoided."

McQueary said he never actually saw penetration by Sandusky, meaning the rape charge would not stand. But after reviewing testimony, Harper said the close contact McQueary did see was enough to carry the day for indecent contact and three other counts.

Everyone charged with a crime deserves the best defense possible. Only when the trial is fair, can society trust in the integrity of the jury s verdict.  Only by protecting the rights of those we consider the lowest among us, can we ensure those rights will be there for everyone should they need them.  

As for how we do it, I can only answer for myself: With pride and dedication. Except for one's health, I can't think of anything more important to any individual than his or her freedom. To be provided the opportunity to preserve someone's freedom is a gift, not a burden.

A defense lawyer's role doesn't end with a verdict. When a client acknowledges guilt by pleading guilty or is found guilty at trial, we  turn our attention to sentencing and mitigation of punishment. There's something good in everyone. Good people sometimes do bad things, It's our responsibility to make sure the judge sees it.

It's very unfortunate that guilt sells in America to the extent that people would cheer at a guilty verdict and the deprivation of someone's freedom.  I can understand people feeling satisfied that a man was convicted after a fair trial with competent counsel (assuming that's what happened here, I didn't follow the trial.) But to cheer as if they are in a Roman coliseum instead of on the courthouse steps?  Those are the people I would find indefensible, not my clients.

Every human being, including criminal defendants who have done bad things, are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Society may have the right to take away their freedom, but it does not have the right to  take away their humanity.

I consider it a great credit to their professionalism that they have the capacity to set aside their personal feelings, in order to fulfill their oaths as officers of the court and defend their clients with every available means at their disposal.

Now, there are those people who don't particularly like what criminal defense attorneys do for a living, but so what? We need to always remember that it's because of folks like Jeralyn that we can trust the general integrity of the criminal justice system. Otherwise, absent a vigorous defense for the accused, a criminal trial will inevitably devolve into little more than a kangaroo court proceeding with a relatively foregone conclusion.

But what I've not seen is the kind of extensive yapping about details of the case from an attorney 5 minutes post-conviction.

When Pittsburgh millionaire Harry Thaw was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the 1906 shooting death of celebrated architect Sanford White in front of countless horrified patrons at the Harmonia Gardens restaurant in New York -- the first such notorious incident in the 20th century to be labeled a so-called "crime of the century" -- the news went out over the telegraph wires, and most newspapers had a print edition out within hours of the verdict.

Regarding Darrow and the Massie-Fortescue trial, there were undersea cables already in place between Hawaii and the west coast back in 1932 to broadcast the news. A lot of people don't realize that the "Massie Affair" comprised two of the most celebrated criminal trials of its era, and it would surprise many to learn that the story's notoriety eclipsed even that of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, which occurred contemporaneously to the events in Honolulu.

The jury in Honolulu announced its guilty verdict at 4:00 p.m. Hawaii time on May 4, 1932, a Friday afternoon. That was 10:00 p.m. in the evening on the east coast. By the following morning, it was the front-page headline and lead, above-the-fold story in most every daily newspaper across the United States.

But also within minutes of the jury's announcement, CBS and NBC were both on the air broadcasting the verdict across all its channels, which took most of white America by complete surprise. The reaction was swift and fiery. Early the next morning (still the middle of the night in Honolulu), listeners were tuned into NBC's popular and populist correspondent Floyd Gibbons, who'd been sent to the islands to cover Darrow and the Massie-Forescue trial, denouncing the jury verdict in vigorously racist terms, and calling for martial law to be imposed in Honolulu:

"If President Hoover has a spinal column he will take Hawaii out of the hands of half-breed politicians that have made it a cesspool and a danger spot. Maybe you don't want white American rule in Hawaii. I do."

Almost instantaneous communication has been around for a long time -- if for only some in society then, too.  It's quite instructive to read how much of the past we repeat, just with different toys, oops, I mean with different tools.

And the interim technologies are really fun to read about -- newsreels before tv and, in NYC, a wonderfully weird system of broadcasting baseball games before there was radio.