There weren't a lot of major new twists and turns in the Jerry Sandusky saga during this month's evidentiary hearings aimed at helping Sandusky overturn his 2012 conviction for sexually abusing 10 boys between 1994 and 2008.
That speaks, perhaps, to the difficult task Sandusky's appellate attorneys have in showing their client deserves a new trial.
But even those who have been following this case for pay learned a few new things this month - or got a little deeper into some of the old things. Here's a few observations that stood out to us.
1. So far, it's hard to see how the "who was Victim 2?" debate really helps Sandusky long-term.
Much was learned about the man who has self-identified as the officially unidentified boy Mike McQueary saw in the shower with Sandusky in February 2001, but it's still hard to draw final conclusions without hearing his direct testimony.
Since he is a potential sex abuse victim, we aren't naming him here. But his winding story goes like this:
* September, 2011: The man interviews with Pennsylvania State police, called in as a potential Sandusky victim after police and agents notice that he received a lot of attention from Sandusky over the years.
Having already been contacted by Sandusky and asked for his help, the man speaks at length about his relationship with Sandusky over the years and swears that he was never abused.
* November 2011 - After Sandusky is charged, the man initially gives a statement to Sandusky's trial attorney, Joe Amendola, that he was the kid seen in the shower with Sandusky by McQueary but never abused.
Shortly after, however, the man presents himself to State College attorney Andrew Shubin as an abuse victim, and they start resisting efforts by state investigators for follow-up interviews. Shubin attributes it to a dispute over whether he can be present with his client for the interview or not.
* February 2012 - The man finally starts a series of interviews with by a U.S. Postal Service inspector assisting on the Sandusky case. In what Shubin described last week as a trust-building session, he describes his relationship with Sandusky in general terms, but admits to lying to state police in his first interview about there being no sexual abuse.
* March 2012 - A second interview is held, and Shubin's client alludes to having been abused by Sandusky on three separate occasions when he travelled out-of-state with the former Penn State coach, but says he will talk specifics the next time they meet.
At the follow-up meeting, he says the only sexual contact with Sandusky occurred in the Lasch Building at Penn State. There were about 10 occurrences, he says, the last being the time that McQueary spotted them. The man says he's not ready to talk specifics yet, but will at a future date.
He again recants prior statements about no abuse to Amendola.
* April 2012 - With the Sandusky trial fast approaching, this interview is cancelled at Shubin's client's request, He says he's too upset about the death of a former Marine Corps friend - this would-be Victim 2 had served from 2006 through 2011 - to talk.
Instead, Shubin tries to pass agents an affadavit describing his clients' abuse, but the prosecutors don't accept it, saying they need to hear it from the man directly. They set his case aside and prepare for trial with McQueary and the eight known victims that they had.
Prosecutors all denied having a rock-solid belief, ever, that the man is victim 2 - partly because of factual discrepancies like: The man would have been two months shy of his 14th birthday. McQueary thought he saw a 10-year-old; or his diagram of the Lasch shower room layout that didn't match the real thing.
Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Peterson said this week there is a consensus among prosecutors that the man, now 29, was likely victimized by Sandusky. They just have doubts about he was Victim 2.
The bottom line is, this story has changed so much, it's hard to imagine how the man's testimony would have conclusively moved the needle for a jury even if he had testified - especially in the cases of the other nine boys that were taken to trial.
It's also hard to see how Sandusky's attorney Alexander Lindsay can close the argument that prosecutor Joe McGettigan lied to the jury when he stated in his closing that Victim 2 was "known to God, but not to us."
2. Rumors, secrets, leaks and journalism.
While the defense has worked overtime trying to prove the existence of illicit leaks that point to prosecutorial misconduct during the investigation, the attorney general's office counter-punched effectively this week by laying out all the possible avenues through which someone interested in the Sandusky situation could dig out a story.
While we knew they were there, we really hadn't taken an inventory like this before.
Here's a look at some of the ways enterprising reporters could have - and eventually did - turn this long-simmering stew of rumors and secrets into a story - without an illegal leak.
* School personnel in Clinton County who had become aware of Aaron Fisher's 2008 allegations against Sandusky, as well as a whole football team's worth of kids who were curious why their famous volunteer coach had been banned from the campus.
* Second Mile board members - a vast array of business and civic leaders from central Pennsylvania and beyond - whom Sandusky had told about the investigation when he resigned from the youth charity's board in the fall of 2010.
Prior absences by Sandusky from events like the charity's annual golf tournament in 2009 had already caused rumors to flare.
* Children and Youth service workers in Clinton County who took up the Fisher case, ultimately referring it to district attorneys in both Clinton and Centre counties before it reached the Office of Attorney General.
* Aaron Fisher, Victim 1 in the trial, and other witnesses who were called to testify before the grand jury and, while not likely taking a megaphone to the streets, were free to discuss those appearances with family, friends or even, if they wished, a reporter.
Layer on top of that the rumors about Sandusky that had already been circulating on certain Penn State football forums in cyber-space, and the strains of a story were out there.
What kept this from coming out before?
First of all, most of the material was rumor or allegation, the kinds of things no one wants to publish before they have it confirmed multiple ways. Then too, there was that layer of incredulity that had to be pierced given the vaunted reputation of both Penn State's football program, and Sandusky's position within it.
3. The trap play.
We learned that state prosecutors were worried about illicit leaks from their grand jury investigation, too, as press coverage of the Sandusky probe intensified through 2011.
So much so that they actually set a trap in the form of a dummy subpoena to see if someone in their own investigative circle was leaking information to the press.
Secrecy rules in place for statewide investigative grand juries strictly prohibit investigators, prosecutors, jurors or other court personnel from discussing any facts that are presented in the closed grand jury session.
Former Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach said "no one took the bait," which tended to allay fears about a mole on the inside.
The fake subpoena was drafted in the name of someone whom prosecutors believed would be of interest to someone who was feeding information, Eshbach said, but we still don't know who that lucky person was.
Eshbach said only she and Fina knew about the covert attempt to confirm the leak.
4. Sandusky's friends and family are staying loyal.
Many of the same faces who supported the defendant through his June 2012 trial populated the Centre County courtroom for the three days of evidentiary hearings this month.
Sandusky's wife, Dottie, and assorted family members, church members, and a handful of old Penn State friends like former Paterno-era assistant Dick Anderson were there throughout.
The crowd varied from about a dozen to close to 20, regularly filling up three or four benches in the stately Courtroom One.
Several sported their old "Justice for Jerry" buttons.
Sandusky, who appears to be maintaining his health and spirits as well as can be expected for a man in his 70s who's immediate future is 26 more years of incarceration, was clearly heartened at seeing them.
Entering or exiting the courtroom, he never failed to make eye contact, share a smile or place a hand on his heart.
As for the rest of the world...
Sandusky's story is showing signs of, how do we say, un-trending? Even the prospect of the defendant's first testimony under oath on Aug. 12 drew significant press interest, but very few members of the general public.
For now, the record remains open in Sandusky's post-conviction relief act appeal, though no additional hearing dates have been scheduled.