Is that possibly the most confusing, haphazardly thrown together piece of junk ever from a newspaper? (Don't answer.) In this article and I use that term liberally, you have a mention of Curley, references to other witnesses but no real context to their testimoney within the article and then a video of Sandusky in a separate appeals case. No wonder John Q. Mouthbreather has no clue what is going on. How the h3ll does one make sense of anything in the Spanier case after reading that mish-mash of info? Oh wait, the 22-year old at the CDT is following the tweets of someone standing outside the courtroom reading tweets from other people, right?