Wednesday, August 21

Victim 10's TV Interview Inconsistent With Trial Testimony, Court Documents

Victim 10's trial testimony painted a picture of random sexual assaults by Sandusky, but his recent TV interview speaks of a longer-term, nurturing relationship.

Ray Blehar

In an abc6 Action News (WPIV) interview aired on August 20th, Victim 10 stated that he looked to Sandusky as a father figure who showered him with gifts, clothing, and money.  Victim 10 went on to say "I got to meet a lot of the players at the time...and I felt like I had another family that cared for me."

However, when it came to Sandusky's abuse, Victim 10 said "Sandusky was careful, he plotted it out," and "anywhere he felt safe to, he took advantage of me."   He stated he was abused dozens of times.

The lawyer for Victim 10, Joel Feller, said his client suffered unspeakable acts for three years.

These statement are quite dramatic changes from his trial testimony, the prosecution's opening statement, and court documents, which all accused Sandusky of indiscriminate sexual acts with no prior relationship or involvement with the former Founder of The Second Mile for a period of less than two years.

Direct Testimony

Victim 10 testified that he met Sandusky at a summer camp in 1998.  Later in the fall of 1998, Sandusky had called his guardian and picked him up to take him to a football game.  After the game, they went to Sandusky's home where they wrestled around and Sandusky pulled down the boys pants and performed oral sex on him.  

He went on to say Sandusky threatened him, stating he never see his family again. However, Sandusky later apologized, then drove Victim 10 home later that night.

Victim 10 testified he went to Sandusky's home five times and made no mention of being bought gifts by Sandusky or any other sex acts by Sandusky.

Cross Examination

Victim 10 stated that Sandusky he met Sandusky at a summer camp for the Second Mile in 1997 but nothing happened.  In 1998, he encountered Sandusky during a swimming session and Sandusky groped him in the pool.  

In the Fall of 1998, Sandusky called to ask his guardian to take him to a football game on a Friday night.  They went to the Sandusky residence afterwards, where they wrestled and Sandusky performed oral sex on the boy.  Afterwards, Sandusky drove him home.  

Victim 10 stated he saw Sandusky only three more times that Fall and attended football games, but when further questioned, said those occurrences were in 1999, not 1998.  On one of those occasions, Victim 10 said Sandusky took him to Nittany Mall and bought him some shoes, some clothes for school, and a video game.   He further went on to state he stopped contact with Sandusky in 1999 after acknowledging that he attended the summer camp in 1999 (after being abused in 1998).

But the confusion didn't stop there.  

Victim 10 later testified that he first went to a football game on a Saturday morning in 1997.  He went on to say that he attended one football game and one basketball game, but couldn't recall exactly if other children were with him or not.  He also attended a picnic at the Sandusky's but couldn't recall if it was on a weekday or weekend.  He went on to say it might not have been a cookout because there were numerous activities of which he participated.


Under direct questioning, Victim 10 testified to being with Sandusky just five times.

Finally, Victim 10 was asked about his grand jury testimony pertaining to an incident where Sandusky attempted to get him to perform oral sex on him in a silver convertible.  Victim 10 confirmed this incident, that he refused to perform the act, and Sandusky threatened him.

Dottie Sandusky later testified the Sandusky's never owned a silver convertible and no other victims who were abused over the same time period recalled seeing a silver convertible.  

Also, Dottie Sandusky remembered every other victim in the case, except Victim 10.

Prosecutor: "Less lengthy"

Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan, in the Commonwealth's opening statement, said that Victim 10's contact with Sandusky was less lengthy and referenced two abuse incidents.  While the opening statement is not evidence, it was very consistent with Victim 10's testimony that would follow.  The transcript is below (with names of Victims redacted).

Court Document: Less Than Two Years of Contact

According to the Amended Bill of Particulars, Victim 10's contact with Sandusky was from September 1997 to July 1999, which does not support his trial testimony of meeting Sandusky in the summer of 1997 nor does it support Joel Feller's statement about the three year period of abuse his victim suffered.

Simply put, the statements of Feller and his clients are inconsistent with every known fact on the public record about  the case.  

Juror's Had Doubts But Voted For Guilty Verdict

According to juror Joshua Harper, the Sandusky jury spent considerable time deliberating about Victim 10's story because it differed from the others.  Harper stated that the jurors plotted his story on a whiteboard and found similarities that made his story believable.  As an analyst, I view this as a case of confirmation bias.  In other words, the jurors were trying to justify a guilty verdict rather than weighing the value of the contradictory evidence to determine if it constituted reasonable doubt. 


In the TV interview, Victim 10 was not asked to explain any of the inconsistencies between what he said in the interview and what he said in his testimony. 

I contacted the "investigative journalist," Wendy Saltzman, via e-mail and twitter to inquire if she knew about Victim 10's story changing.  I did not receive a response.

It's clear they are two different versions of his interactions with Sandusky.


  1. This link includes John Ziegler's discussion with Kevin Slaten regarding PSU payouts on behalf of Jerry Sandusky's crimes or unproved allegations of such:

    Ziegler's portion begins around the 46 min point.

    46 min -1 hr 20 min

  2. Ray, Dr Niles has shared a finding of research in his field that really got my attention. Perhaps as we attempt to share facts, particularly complex or inconvenient results of investigations, we all should step back now and again and reiterate what has driven us to do the hard work of discovery.

    Dr Spencer Niles: "One thing we know from counseling research is that relationships are more important than theories. Another way to put that is that people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care."

    William & Mary - Q&A: W&M’s new education dean on his leadership style, goals,-goals123.php

  3. FYI, posted at

    PA State Senator Takes PSU BOT to Woodshed for Handling of Sandusky Settlements

    Submitted by jzadmin on Thu, 08/22/2013 - 10:04

    This is the text of an email just sent to supporters by Pennsylvania State Senator John Yudichak.

    As a Penn State alum, I take great pride in our university, our students and the world-class education offered at Penn State University. However, like many of you, I remain frustrated with the decisions made and actions taken by the Board of Trustees over the past year that continue to cost Penn State tens of millions of dollars.
    With the latest news coming out of State College, it is once again clear that the Penn State Board of Trustees has no regard for public perception or for the alumni constituency of the University. This is a serious matter and I plan to confer with our leadership staff in Harrisburg to see what options we have to address this disappointing behavior legislatively.


    Senator John T. Yudichak
    Room 366
    Senate Box 203014
    Main Capitol Building
    Harrisburg, PA 17120-3014
    717-787-7105 Office
    717-783-4141 Fax