The defendants made several arguments, including that too much time has elapsed under the statute of limitations; they did not provide direct care for children; they are accused of actions that occurred before the law was changed; and prosecutors should not be allowed to add a conspiracy charge.
The first three have seemed obviously true to me all along, but I am manifestly not a lawyer, an expert on the laws that apply or even reasonably well-informed about them. My guess is that the conspiracy charge is needed to moot the other arguments.
My current belief is that a trial in the Spanier defamation case is the best chance for any clarifying new information.
My read of the Freeh Report (not any of the commentary on the Freeh Report from Freeh or his associates) is:
- Penn State didn't report Sandusky - some evidence provided
- Penn State loved its football program and sometimes stepped in to prevent embarrassing information about it from becoming public - some evidence provided
- Therefore, it's likely that 1 happened because of 2 - no evidence provided, abductive reasoning employed - "inference to the best explanation"
If Spanier's lawyers can get the Freeh investigators to testify under oath on 3, it could change the narrative somewhat, regardless of anyone's memories or lack of memories about what exactly happened.
Of course, it's also possible that pigs may some day fly.