There is no doubt that the Jerry Sandusky scandal has wreaked havoc in the State College community known as Happy Valley.
To begin with, the young men who had already been molested at the hands of Sandusky would now have to revisit and share their nightmares all over again in the public arena.
Secondly, a beloved and iconic coach, who spent his life transforming teenagers into young men by instilling in them the wisdom of ‘success with honor,’ was fired by the very University he helped build for 61 years. Yes, Joe Paterno deserved better.
Had Penn State University exercised due diligence from the outset and governed with prudent fiduciary practice, I believe Joe Paterno’s legacy would have remained intact and there would be no NCAA sanctions.
The Penn State Board of Trustees, you may now take a bow for a job well done. Our hats off to you for successfully turning the Sandusky scandal into the Penn State scandal, costing our school, not only hundreds of millions of dollars, but her honor, as well.
And here, in the midst of this havoc, are thousands of alumni, friends, and supporters, trying to make sense out of one man’s depravity and one Board’s absurdity.
INNOCENT OR GUILTY?
Although we know more facts with each passing day, there is still debate at every juncture.
One juncture, believe it or not, centers around Sandusky himself. At the core of the debate is whether or not Sandusky received a fair trial. From there, the debate branches off to Sandusky’s level of actual guilt or innocence.
There are strong arguments that suggest Sandusky received less than a fair trial. I would have to agree. The timeline itself, from start to finish, raises eyebrows. It took less than 8 months from his arrest, to try and convict him on 45 of 48 counts. That certainly gives new meaning to the phrase ‘speedy trial.’
However, does an accelerated trial necessarily mean he was not guilty? Absolutely not. Would a new trial overturn some of the previous 45 convictions? Perhaps. But, I believe, based on Sandusky’s own words and admitted behavior, even without victims’ testimonies, he is guilty of grooming and molesting young boys.
UNDERSTANDING CHILD MOLESTERS
Let’s first look at the characteristics and behavior of a child molester. Of the many different types of molesters, Sandusky has been identified as a ‘preferential child molester’ or ‘preferential sex offender.’
The following information comes from several sources1 including Jim Clemente, a former FBI profiler and expert in sex offender behavior, and Kenneth Lanning, M.S., a retired FBI special agent and expert on child sex crimes. Once you learn the characteristics and behavioral patterns of a preferential sex offender and compare them with Sandusky’s known characteristics and admitted behavior as told in his own words, there will be little doubt that Sandusky molested children.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A PREFERENTIAL SEX OFFENDER
First, a preferential sex offender has a definitive sexual preference for children. He is sexually attracted to children and prefers to be with them. Because he desires to be with children, the offender will gravitate to employment, activities and/or relationships which provide access or proximity to children. He may seek out being a teacher, camp counselor, school bus driver, coach, or volunteer, where he can eventually specialize in working directly with children. The offender, with or without a spouse, may adopt children or become a foster parent. This access gives the offender the potential to molest vast numbers of children, which are usually age and gender specific, based on his preference.
The preferential sex offender might be a prominent citizen, a pillar of the community. The reality is that in most child sexual abuse cases, the offender is someone who is known and trusted not only by the victim but also by the victim's family. Many offenders are described as “pied pipers” who attract children. This ability often helps them become exceptionally good teachers, coaches, or youth volunteers. His adult status and authority gain him the automatic trust and respect of children, their families, and the community. The offender may be married, have a family, have a successful business or career, and be active in his religious institution, yet he has secret desires that he struggles with.
Each child molester has a particular way to meet these desires and justify his or her behavior. Molesters use distorted thinking to rationalize and justify their crimes, to make their own needs most important and to minimize their behavior. Many offenders convince themselves that the relationship they have with their victim is different and special; that it is a mutual, loving, caring relationship; that the sexual acts are consensual; or that the child somehow benefits from the relationship. The offender “loves” the children and doesn’t want to harm them; he courts them and lures them with gifts, activities, and individual attention as a seduction ploy and slowly becomes intimate with the child. The offender is keenly aware of the wants and needs of children and is masterful at exploiting those needs.
The offender is often considered immature, uncomfortable around adults, and is childlike himself in his lifestyle and behaviors. Child sex offenders usually have the ability to identify with children better than they do with adults and especially know how to talk to children and are very good listeners – traits that makes most offenders master seducers of children.
PATTERNS OF BEHAVIORThe preferential child molester exhibits distinct patterns of behavior that are common among his kind. He first targets specific children that match his preference. He then spends time grooming and seducing the children by engaging in activities that build trust while lowering their inhibitions. Finally, and often before they realize what is happening, he engages in sexual activity with the children.
The preferential sex offender often targets
needy or neglected children and those from dysfunctional homes. A favorite
target victim is a child living with a single mother. The offender will
sometimes express a desire to be a father
figure or mentor for her child. The offenders often "seduce" the victim's
parents, gaining their trust and confidence, so that they will allow him free
access to their children. In fact, he may be molesting several
victims at the same time.
Preferential child molesters may have access to school, medical, mental-health, or court records. These records could be valuable in determining a child's interests or vulnerabilities.
Almost any child can be seduced, but the most vulnerable children tend to be those who come from dysfunctional homes or are victims of emotional or physical abuse/neglect.
GROOMING and SEDUCTION
Once the offender has targeted a child, he begins the process of grooming or seducing the child. This process occurs over a period of time and gradually lowers resistance, as well as, the child’s sexual inhibitions.
Jim Clemente states:
“Grooming is a pattern of activity employed by preferential child sex offenders to gain access, authority, and control over children for sexual purposes, to ensure their silence, and to keep them in a position in which they can be repeatedly victimized. The results of effective grooming are both far-reaching and long-term. They include: continued access to the child, initial cooperation of the child, isolation of the child, feelings of love, loyalty, and a debt of gratitude on the part of the child towards the offender. Then, when the sexual activity occurs, the child can experience intense feelings of shame, embarrassment, guilt, and confusion. One of the nefarious consequences of effective grooming is that the offenders’ motives are seen as altruistic, loving, and kind. He is seen to be sacrificing his time for the benefit of the children he helps. He is seen to be a person who would “never hurt a child.” In fact, in most cases of “nice-guy” offenders, the perpetrator actually loves children, enjoys their company, and has convinced himself that the sexual interactions he has with the children he feels close to are merely expression of love and not harmful to the child. This is an example of rationalization and minimization that help a child sex offender grant himself permission to commit the offenses.”
The offender will seduce children by buying gifts and appealing to their emotional weakness by making them feel ‘special.’ This requires the offender to develop a close friendship with the child or utilize an existing relationship with the victim.
The offender often relies on threats to silence the victim. Typically, the victim remains silent about the abuse because they are ashamed or embarrassed. Sometimes the victims even feel ‘special’ to the offender and accept the abuse because of the attention, gifts, and benefits of the ‘relationship.’ Gifts and financial incentives are important, especially for kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, but attention and affection are the key factors.
“The typical adolescent, especially a boy, is easily sexually aroused, sexually curious, sexually inexperienced, and somewhat rebellious. All these traits combine to make the adolescent boy the easiest victim of this seduction. It takes almost nothing to get an adolescent boy sexually aroused. An adolescent boy with emotional and sexual needs is simply no match for an experienced 50-year-old man with an organized plan. Yet adult offenders who seduce them, and the society that judges them, continue to claim that these victims "consented." The result is a victim who feels responsible for what happened and embarrassed about his actions.
The next step in the seduction process is the lowering of inhibitions. It is easy to be judgmental toward victims when you look at only the end product of their seduction. At the beginning of the relationship the child is looking for friendship, emotional support, a job, or just some fun. The lowering of sexual inhibitions is usually done so gradually and skillfully that the victim does not realize he or she is a victim until it is too late. It may begin with simple affection such as a pat, hug, or kiss on the cheek. The activity can progress to fondling while wrestling, playing hide-and-seek in the dark, playing strip poker, swimming nude in the pool, drying the child with a towel, massaging an injury, giving a back rub, tickling, playing a physical game, or cuddling in bed.
By the time the victims realize what is going on, they are in the middle of it and ashamed of their complicity. They did not "say no, yell, and tell." Most preferential child molesters usually work toward a situation in which the child has to change clothing, spend the night, or both. If the child molester achieves either of these two objectives, the success of the seduction is almost assured. The objective of changing clothes can be accomplished by such ploys as squirting with the garden hose, turning up the heat in the house, exercising, taking a bath or shower, physical examination of the child, or swimming in a pool. Spending the night with the child is the best way for the sexual activity to progress. “
These are desire driven behaviors to which the offender is willing to devote considerable time, money, and energy in spite of the risks and contrary to self-interests. In fact, a molester will frequently persist in the criminal conduct even when they have reason to believe the conduct has come to the attention of law enforcement.
Sandusky was a revered defensive coordinator for Penn State who served as an assistant coach for 30 years (1969-1999) and helped the PSU football team earn the nickname ‘Linebacker U.’ His coaching achievements include being named Assistant Coach of the Year in 1986 and 1999.
In 1977, during his coaching tenure, he founded The Second Mile, a non-profit charity serving Pennsylvania underprivileged and at-risk youth. For his incredible work at The Second Mile, Sandusky received many honors and awards such as “Thousand Points of Light” By President George H.W. Bush and “Angels in Adoption” by U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.
Sandusky was loved by the entire community, from young children to Penn State students and alumni to the elderly. If there was a picture perfect ‘pillar of the community,’ Sandusky was it.
MAY 1998 SHOWER INCIDENT
In May of 1998, a mother of a young boy became concerned when her son exhibited signs of possible sex abuse after he had showered with Jerry Sandusky at the Lasch building on PSU main campus. She first reported her son’s behavior to his psychologist, who assured her she was not over-reacting. Under the advice of the psychologist, the mother reported it to the University Park police (UP) which collaborated with the State College police, Child and Youth Services (CYS), the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), and the District Attorney to investigate the incident. The investigation revealed Sandusky had also showered twice with another boy in the neighborhood.
These are the facts acknowledged by Sandusky himself according to the 1998 police report of that incident. (http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/redactedpolicereport.pdf)
Sandusky was not charged for this 1998 incident. The boy in this incident, however, would later become known as victim #6 during the 2008-2011 Sandusky investigation that eventually led to Sandusky being convicted on 45 of 48 counts.
In 1998, Sandusky disclosed and admitted the following:
- - Sandusky met this boy (Victim 6) around April 1, 1998 at a Second Mile event, just 1 month prior to this investigation.
- -Sandusky admitted taking Victim 6 (and other boys), one on one, to work out and ‘wrestle.’
- -Sandusky admitted he would try to ‘pin’ them and have them try to ‘pin’ him.
- - Sandusky told Victim 6 he ‘loved him’ that night (after only knowing him for a month).
- -Sandusky said he would have brief workouts on the weights or play some basketball or ‘polish soccer’ and work up a light sweat.
- - Sandusky admitted to showering with Victim 6 and other young boys, one on one, many times in the evening, alone after these ‘workouts.’
- -Sandusky admitted to bear hugging the boys while naked in the shower.
- Sandusky admitted to the mother that his private parts may have touched the boy . (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/spanier-schultz-curley_presentment-11-1-12.pdf)
- When the mother of Victim 6 confronted Sandusky about the night he took her son to work out she told Sandusky her son was acting differently and asked Sandusky: ‘Did anything happen?’ Sandusky said, ‘We worked out. Did (he) say something happened? Do you want me to talk to him?’ After the mother said she needed to think about whether letting her son spend time with him she again asked ‘Did something happen?’ Sandusky said ‘I don’t think so. Do you want me to talk to (him)? Should I let him alone?’ (Sandusky never disclosed showering with the boy until specifically asked. When confronted with these questions, Sandusky very subtly deflects what HE did and takes the focus off his behavior (minimizes behavior) and asks if the boy ‘said something’ and if he should ‘talk to the boy.’ As if the boy did something wrong or if the boy’s interpretation of his behavior was wrong. Sandusky NEVER discussed what HE did and if HIS actions were wrong. He was deflecting any blame of his behavior and projecting it onto the boy.)
- Sandusky could not promise the mother of Victim 6 he would not shower with boys anymore.
- Sandusky admitted it was wrong to the police and said he ‘used poor judgment.’ He was distraught at the fact he did ‘anything that would upset the boy’ and understood ‘why the mother was concerned’ about them taking a shower together.
- Sandusky was a little emotional and concerned as to how this might have adversely affected the child. (Exhibit 2D Freeh Report Tom Harmon’s email to G Schultz)
- Police determined no crime had occurred but advised Sandusky not to shower with children anymore. Sandusky assured the police he would not shower with boys anymore.
Following this investigation there could now no longer be the excuse that “Jerry was just being Jer” or that he did not know better. He admitted to using poor judgment and told the police it would not happen again. He now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong and has been put on notice: DO NOT SHOWER WITH YOUNG BOYS.
One would think an investigation by the local police, child welfare agencies, and District Attorney would have put the fear of God in Sandusky. After all, he was an innocent man and an upstanding pillar of the community and his life and livelihood were on the line. One would think that he would take extra precautionary measures around young boys at this point, especially since he interacts with them daily at The Second Mile.
FEBRUARY 9, 2001 SHOWER INCIDENT
Apparently the police instruction and fear of God didn’t stick.
A few years later, on February 9, 2001, Mike McQueary walked into the Lasch locker room on a Friday evening and upon entering the locker room witnessed Sandusky in the shower with a young boy. He became very upset with what he saw and reported what he thought was an inappropriate incident to his superiors- Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz.
- Within 3 years Sandusky was caught showering with another boy in the Lasch building for the same behavior he had been instructed by police in 1998 not to do.
- When confronted by Curley several days after the incident, Sandusky actually denied being in the shower with a boy on that night of 2-9-01. However, a couple days later, Sandusky did admit to Curley that he and a boy showered that night in the Lasch building. (http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/CurleySchultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf pp185-186, 204)
- Sandusky was told AGAIN by Curley that this was inappropriate behavior and not to shower with boys anymore. Sandusky said he wouldn’t.
RELATIONSHIP WITH AARON FISHER
On November 20, 2008, Aaron Fisher reported being sexually abused by Sandusky to the Clinton County Children & Youth Services (CYS). Fisher became known as Victim 1 during the three year investigation which resulted in Sandusky being convicted on 45 of 48 counts. (http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061212_%20JT.pdf pp 124-185)
The following are facts acknowledged and disclosed by Sandusky according to a report by Jessica Dershem, the Clinton County Children & Youth caseworker who spoke with Sandusky in 2008 after Fisher contacted CYS to report the alleged abuse.
- Sandusky said they had a 3 year relationship that began around the summer of ’05 when Fisher was 11 yrs old.
- Sandusky thought of Fisher ‘like a son.’
- Sandusky said he took interest in Fisher because Fisher’s father was not involved in his life and Sandusky wanted ‘to make Aaron feel important and significant.’
- Sandusky says he was ‘wrapped up in Aaron Fisher.’
- Sandusky admitted to taking Fisher and other boys out of class to spend time with them without parent’s permission.
- Sandusky admitted to blowing raspberries on Fisher’s stomach.
- Sandusky admitted to lying on top of Fisher to crack his back and pulling Fisher on top of him horizontally and vertically to crack his back usually around bed time while ‘wrestling around.’
- Sandusky admitted that they would lie on each other for periods of 5-20 minutes.
- Sandusky admitted to rubbing Fisher’s back underneath his shirt but couldn’t ‘honestly answer if his hands were below the boy’s pants.’
- Sandusky admitted kissing Fisher and other boys on the forehead and maybe the cheek.
- Sandusky said he would ask for hugs.
- Sandusky would have Fisher sleep over at his house.
- Sandusky took Fisher away to Eagle’s games, Big 33 game, and overnight football camps where they stayed in the same hotel room.
- In ‘08 before Fisher reported the abuse, Sandusky said Fisher didn’t want to help him with The Second Mile anymore and Sandusky said he ‘felt used.’
- Sandusky admitted taking Fisher out of an assembly and argued with Fisher about not spending time with him.
- Sandusky denied ‘following Fisher’s bus home’ but said ‘he went in the direction that he thought the bus went.’ Once he ‘located’ Fisher walking he had him get in the car because he felt badly and wanted to ‘talk with him concerning the argument they had after Sandusky pulled him from the assembly.’ Sandusky said they argued, Fisher got angry and got out of car. Sandusky then drove to Fisher’s home and spoke with his mother.
- Sandusky gave Fisher a computer.
- Sandusky admitted after Fisher started pulling away and after the argument he gave Fisher golf clubs and on his birthday, 11-9-08, he gave him a homemade birthday card, which was the last time Sandusky saw Fisher. This happened 11 days before Fisher reported the alleged abuse.
- Sandusky admitted doing similar things with other boys.
- Records show Sandusky telephoned Fisher 61 times from his home phone and 57 times from his cell phone between January 2008 and July 2009.
There were other witnesses who observed Sandusky’s relationship with Fisher. During the time Sandusky was a volunteer football coach at Central Mountain High, Joseph Miller, a wrestling coach for an elementary school in Central Mountain (2000-2008) observed the following: (http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061212_%20JT.pdf pp 300-320)
- In ‘06-‘07 Miller would often see Sandsuky and Fisher in the hallway together in the middle school.
- Miller would see Sandusky waiting around for Fisher during and after school.
- One night @8pm Miller had left the school but came back to get something. The school and gym were dark, but he saw lights from the small weight room that had a rock climbing wall. He went to turn off the lights and saw Sandusky and Fisher in the back far corner on a small mat lying on their sides face to face. When Sandusky heard Miller he quickly propped up on one arm and said ‘hey coach, Aaron and I are just working on some wrestling moves.’
- Miller didn’t think much of it because he saw Sandusky and Fisher around and thought Sandusky was like a ‘father figure’ to Fisher.
- On the way home he thought it was peculiar they would work on wrestling moves on a small mat in the small room when the big wrestling room was full of mats. He then thought ‘Jerry is a saint’ and thought no more about it.
- Sandusky was described as being clingy and needy when boys would distance themselves.
The investigation also revealed
letters written by Sandusky to a teenage boy, now known as Victim 4. Sandusky had been involved in Victim 4’s life
for about 4-5 years before Victim 4 began pulling away from him around
2002. During this time that Victim 4 was
trying to distance himself, Sandusky wrote him the following letters. (Not in
any particular order.) (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_prosecuti_4.html)
LETTERS FROM JERRY SANDUSKY
I know that I have made my share of mistakes.
However I hope that I will be able to say that I cared. There has been love in my heart.
My wish is that you care and have love in your heart. Love never ends. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
However I hope that I will be able to say that I cared. There has been love in my heart.
My wish is that you care and have love in your heart. Love never ends. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
I believe that it can overcome all things!
Letter 2 (In part)
Once again, I have decided to write some of my thoughts.
I write because you mean so much to us. I write because I am concerned about all of us. …….. I write because of the churning in my own stomach when you don’t care. I write because I still hope that there will be meaning to the time we have known each other.
Yes, I am a “Great Pretender.” I pretend that I can sing. I pretend about many things. However, I can’t pretend about my feelings and want you to always remember that I care.
Not always a pretender - “Jer”
The B-J Story:
Very few people know about this story and probably less care. I guess that I’m writing it for me. I’m Jer.
(Victim 4) is a young man that came into Jer’s life. It was a difficult time for Jer because he had lost his dad. Jer and his dad shared so much, did many things together. (Victim 4) comes along and he and Jer seem to enjoy the same experiences. Both seemed to be in need. They loved playing games, competing, singing, laughing, sharing experiences, just being themselves. Jer remembers driving (Victim 4) home. (Victim 4) would say, “Tell me another story, Jer.”
Jer, of course, being filled with them would come up with one. Jer remembers how he didn’t want those rides to end.
Jer became attached to (Victim 4) and always will be. (Victim 4) loved Justice and Staush, and they love him. He and Jer played Polish soccer, wrote papers together, rode (Victim 4)'s four wheeler even though Jer was scared to death, studied in the playground, roller skated, ice skated, jet skiied, went to a bowl game, spent days at football and soccer camp, canoed, traveled and more. He met and did things with Penn State football players and spent many hours with them and Jer.
It wasn’t (Victim 4), Jer, LaVar, Mac, Courtney, David, Anthony, Josh, etc., it was “we.”
Times were not always perfect. There were ups and downs. There were arguments, fights, they cared! No matter what, there was a connection that would help them last through their difficult times. There was always a sensitive, caring feeling deep inside. Jer had learned through many experiences that life isn’t perfect, even with someone he considered to be his “best friend.”
Life is far from perfect at this stage. Something or things have come into (Victim 4)’s life that appear to have taken him over. It’s powerful, a cloud of smoke that has engulfed him, for Jer it has been a dark cloud. (Victim 4) seemed to fight it, coming over trying to do hockey, but couldn’t pull it off. He seemed to be losing these battles more and more.
Inch by inch the cloud has chocked him and taken over. It has smothered sensitivity and love, taken away his caring and enthusiasm. His enthusiasm has been replaced by sleep, his caring replaced by apathy (no concern). “Tell me another story, Jer, “ has been replaced by “I don’t care.” This cloud has destroyed soccer and hockey, choked smiles and laughter. There is fear that it has reached his insides, killing his feelings.
Jer believes that there will always be something special inside (Victim 4).
He hopes that it will last, return, if it has left. The players miss him.
They say, “come back, (Victim 4)!” “Stay with us, (Victim 4)!” Jer would love to have the good times back. The players shout, “be with us to the end!”
Jer would love to hear “Tell me another story, Jer.” Jer may not be worthy, but he needs a “best friend.” It doesn’t look real good.
Jer understands life and its changes. He’s proud, too proud to beg for a friend, extended family member. The story will end the way (Victim 4) wants it. Jer wants to be there to the end, but that’s (Victim 4)’s call. If (Victim 4) ever needs him, he’ll come.
Regardless, they have had an experience that others won’t. Jer will not forget and always care!
The investigation also uncovered a contract Sandusky made with Victim 4 that in essence would force Victim 4 to spend more time with him in exchange for money.
Jerry hides behind the shroud of fatherly love in public with these boys, conveying to others that they are ‘like sons.’ But in private, as written and spoken by Jerry himself, he never relates his ‘love’ as fatherly love for a son, it’s always more intimate, like a ‘best friend’ or ‘special’ type of love which is never appropriate between a 50 + year old man and a young boy. And, much of the writing in the letters seems to be coming from a broken heart that is saddened over a special ‘loved one’ walking away.
PREFERENTIAL SEX OFFENDER & SANDUSKY COMPARISON
Now let’s compare the characteristics and behavior of a preferential sex offender with the known characteristics and behavior of Sandusky. Of course, just because a man or woman shares these characteristics, works closely with children, and is highly revered in the community does not necessarily mean they have nefarious motives. But, looking at this comparison, in conjunction with Sandusky’s own words and admitted behavior with 11-15 year old boys, leaves little doubt this ‘saint’ fooled an entire community for decades.
The following shows the overlapping characteristics and behavior of a preferential sex offender and that of Sandusky:
- Pillar of the Community.
- Successful and popular assistant Penn State football coach.
- Was an adoptive parent of six children and foster parent to many.
- Active in his Methodist church.
- Was well-known and trusted by everyone in the community.
- Founded The Second Mile (TSM) charity that gave him unfettered access to underprivileged and at-risk youth.
- Many of these youth were needy or neglected children from dysfunctional homes where the child was often raised by a single mother and had no father figure.
- Worked directly with these youth as a volunteer and coach.
- Wanted to be a ‘Father Figure’ to the boys because their father was absent.
- Sandusky thought of the boys ‘like a son.’ (This is common terminology used by Jerry to appear to be in a proper relationship, viewed as ‘family’ by others which lowered scrutiny and eliminated suspicion by others of an improper relationship.)
- Wanted to make boys ‘feel important and significant.’
- Had access to boys’ private information/records at TSM.
- Had ‘special’ and ‘loving, caring’ relationships with boys.
- Spent endless hours with boys giving them special attention.
- Pampered the boys with gifts.
- Made boys feel special with activities, such as letting the boys meet the PSU players, taking them to PSU football games (allowing them on the sidelines), Bowl games and NFL games, having BBQs and sleep overs at his home.
- Admitted he took boys on overnight outings and slept in the same hotel room.
- Was known as a ‘Big Kid’ and was always goofing and ‘horsing’ around with boys and often interacted with children more than adults.
- Was uncomfortable interacting with adults.
- Spent time with boys without parent’s permission.
- Said he ‘loves’ the boys and was ‘wrapped up’ with them and enjoys spending time with them (spent hours just driving to and from their homes, sometimes 30-40 miles away, picking them up and dropping them off.)
- During the 1998 probe, Sandusky said he would ‘never hurt a child’ and was concerned with the welfare of the child.
- Admitted to rubbing boys’ legs.
- Admitted to kissing boys on the head and cheek.
- Admitted to hugging boys and asking boys for hugs.
- Admitted to getting the boys to change clothes before an activity.
- Admitted to wrestling with boys, one on one, trying to pin them and have them pin him. (Introducing physical touch, exploring what he can get away with.)
- Admitted to ‘working out’ with boys, one on one.
- Admitted to showering with boys, one on one, after ‘working out.’
- Admitted to bear hugging boys naked in the shower.
- Admitted his privates may have touched the boys during the naked bear hugging.
- Admitted to lying on top of boys and having boys lie on top of him to ‘crack’ each other’s backs.
- Admitted to caressing a boy’s back and was not sure if his hands ‘went below the boy’s pants.’
- Admitted to having boys sleep over and ‘tucking’ them in and blowing raspberries on their stomach before bed.
- Admitted he argued with a boy when the boy started pulling away.
- Admitted he ‘felt used’ when the boy no longer wanted to spend time with him.
- Followed the boy home on a school bus because he was upset they argued and wanted to talk with the boy.
- Created a contract with a boy who started to pull away in order to spend more time with him in exchange for money.
- Wrote letters expressing his ‘love and concern’ to a boy when the boy started pulling away.
If there is any doubt whether you believe Sandusky was a preferential sex offender, reread the above comparison and in place of ‘boys’ imagine he did these things with ‘11 year old girls.’
Any doubt now?
June 8, 2014
June 8, 2014
(Kenneth Lanning-Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis)