Sunday, June 8

EILEEN MORGAN: Sandusky is Guilty: From his own mouth

Printable version at:

Eileen Morgan

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.


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.



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.


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.


The 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.


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.

Kenneth Lanning says:
“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.


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. (

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 . (
-          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. 


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.  (  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.


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. ( 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: ( 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.) (
Letter 1
(Victim 4):
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.
I believe that it can overcome all things!
With love,
Letter 2 (In part)
(Victim 4):
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.

Letter 3
(Victim 4):
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”
Letter 4
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.


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?

Eileen Morgan
June 8, 2014
 (Kenneth Lanning-Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis) ]


  1. I never had a doubt about Sandusky's grooming, fondling, boundary violations, deviate sexual attractions, and molestation. And I'm just as certain that the 2001 McQueary situation did not involve rape - but was grooming.
    These behaviors should certainly have been recognized by JACK RAYKOVITZ - the professional child psychologist and head of The Second Mile but there is no reason that Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Joe Paterno or Graham Spanier should have known.
    We are still no closer to any implication and punishment for Raykovitz and his wife who were making serious salaries while failing to protect the children under their protection.

    1. Agree Barry. The lack of action with the Second Mile is probably the most mind boggling of all.

  2. Eileen: you have a complete list of red flags waving in front of the licensed officials at The Second Mile. (actually they are rockets and flares, but I digress) Why did they not think to put Sandusky - the charity Founder, Face & Golden Goose - on a shorter leash, lest any whiff of impropriety would cause ruin to his reputation, his family and the charity? Simply boggles the mind!

    When I first read about the game of "polish soccer" I almost vomited. This is a game I might play with my dog..not a minor I am supposed to be "mentoring". This is not structured play or programming. What exactly was Jerry accessing minors for, under the auspices of The Second Mile and who was monitoring the contact and the progress with these minors, if at all?

    Speaking of access to minors - why was Jerry allowed to access confidential client info? It was that easy to just call these kids up at home and drive over to their house?

    The man is also handing out gifts and football tickets like he's Santa Claus. At the very least, freebies and football tickets should have been coordinated thru the front office of The Second Mile where controls could have been in place. Why Dr. Raykovitz allowed an employee and charity figurehead to supersede commonsense rules of working with minors is truly astonishing.

    There are way too many unanswered questions about The Second Mile and their operations. But of course, this is a "football culture" problem. (sarcasm)

  3. In 1998, when The Second Mile Program were told about the horse playing in the shower. They were in position to tell Jerry that he could no longer take any kid away from the boundaries of the program. Case closed.

    IMO, Jerry molested some of the boys, BUT I still do not believe he had sex or oral sex with any of them. I volunteer to help handicapped boys and girls and I also enjoy doing being involved with kids at my Church. I love hugging them and playing with them. Jerry had adopted kids and foster kids and thus he already had a stable of potential victims. IMO he wanted to be a father figure to disadvantaged boys and I think he severely overstepped boundaries, BUT why haven't more of his adoptive or foster children stepped forward? The only one who has is Matt and I don't believe him at all and as I understand it neither does his friends or brothers and sisters..

  4. What makes no sense to me in all of this is, where is Sandusky's pedophile history prior to 1998? It is generally accepted that pedophile behavior doesn't just occur in individuals in their middle age. I find it interesting that NO Sandusky victims seem to have come forward from 1977, when Sandusky founded Second Mile, or the 80's or 90's up until 1995. I believe one of Sandusky's victims has come forward from that time frame.

    While Morgan puts on a compendium of relevant information here to make her point, the fact is that, based on usual pedophile behavior, it is unlikely that Sandusky became a pedophile in 1998. There is evidence that it happened earlier, but there don't seem to be many documented stories of Sandusky's pedophilia prior to 1998. John Ziegler has pointed this out in the work he has done with Sandusky, which is extensive. It includes several personal interviews with Jerry and Dotty Sandusky. I don't think most people, regardless of John Ziegler's work with Sandusky, buy his assertion that Sandusky is innocent of many of the crimes for which he was convicted.

    Ziegler does make a reasonable point that no one besides the victims can actually corroborate the charges against Sandusky. There are NO eye-witnesses who actually saw Sandusky molesting anyone in the crimes for which he was convicted. There are no rape kits or other tangible, physical evidence to prove Sandusky committed the crimes, just the accounts and claims of the victims themselves. I am NOT for one minute claiming that EVERY victim making a claim against Sandusky is lying. However, there are enough inconsistencies in SOME of the victim's claims, based on info John Ziegler has uncovered about some of the victims stories, to make it questionable if Sandusky actually did commit sexual abuse on some of those victims.

    1. Frank Fina mentioned a 1984 report of abuse of Sandusky when Spanier testified before a grand jury. This may be related to another incident I was informed about in that date range involving the nephew of a PSU football player.

      Travis Weaver alleged he was abused between 1992 and 1995. They did not prosecute his case because he was outside the statute of limitations. The SOL is the likely reason that the public is unaware of abuse prior to 1995.

      Also, in 2008 when Clinton County CYS called the Second Mile to report the incident, VP of Development Katherine Genovese commented that "They had to tell him to back off certain kids before."

      I agree that Sandusky didn't become a pedophile in 1998. I also believe that his role as a foster and adoptive parent gave him "cover" as a pillar of the community. While he may not have abused his own kids, it made him somewhat bulletproof from being seriously investigated as a molester (as happened in 1998).

  5. There is also the added complication that the Penn State BoT, in their headlong rush to "move on" BEFORE proper due process and facts found in evidence could be applied in all these cases, made it clear they were ready to settle out-of-court with ALL of Sandusky's victims. Before the trials of Tim Curley, Graham Spanier and Gary Schultz have been held. They are accused of perjury, failing to report child abuse and entering into a cover-up to hide Sandusky's crimes. Those trials will reveal new evidence and clarify Penn State's actual liability and negligence. There are sufficient legal and evidentiary complications in this case about unanswered questions and reasonable doubt in the prosecution of Sandusky's crimes.

    While I respect and appreciate Morgan's extensive attempt here to provide clarity about Sandusky's guilt or innocence, there are still several issues she doesn't address about many inconsistencies regarding the prosecution of the Sandusky case. Certainly ex-Sandusky prosecutor Frank Fina's statement that he found NO evidence that Joe Paterno covered up for or had any prior knowledge of Sandusky's crimes refutes the findings of the Freeh report. If Freeh was wrong about Joe Paterno, could he ALSO be wrong about Curley, Schultz and Spanier?

    Unfortunately, instead of an investigation by PA law enforcement of Penn State's handling of the Sandusky matter which had subpoena power, witness testimony documented by written transcripts and under oath, we now only have the questionable Freeh report as evidence, which had none of those legal safeguards to guarantee the veracity and thoroughness of that investigation. And there is the added lack of evidence and investigation about Second Mile, Jack Raykovitz, Centre Co. CYS, PA DPW, Cynthia Baldwin, Wendell Courtney, Ray Gricar, the Penn State Campus Police and PA State Police and a host of other key players in the "Sandusky scandal" who have NOT yet been investigated, questioned or documented on the record about their roles and responsibilities regarding the Sandusky matter.

    It is a complex and incomplete record in which ALL the facts and evidence regarding the Sandusky case are STILL not known and need to be investigated and revealed. ONLY THEN can we be sure real "due process" has been properly served in the case of Jerry Sandusky.

  6. Great post Eileen. I know the rules of cross posting a certain someone here so I won't link but you can check out my blog for even more on Jerry's own words and guilt.

  7. Thank you, MacDougal, for this excellent overview of yet-to-be-addressed issues of the Sandusky story.

    And thank you, Eileen, for another clear analysis of things!

    I am not convinced, however, of the extent of JS's inappropriate interactions with boys. I've watched, listened to, and read all the material we have from JS (except for his book "Touched"), including John Ziegler's direct work with Jerry and Dottie. I think JZ's argument against Sandusky having actual sex with boys is sound.

    Certainly the specifics noted here by Eileen are CREEPY, and surely no parent would want an adult doing such things with their kids. But did JS and the boys have actual sex (oral, anal, or otherwise), or did JS not take things that far??

    A full accounting of the extent of his bad behavior with boys is needed, I think, if we are to ever understand WHY the two McQueary men, Dr Dranov, PSU Police and administrators, and TSM execs and Board thought it OK to not immediately stop Sandusky from any further unsupervised time with boys.

    1. I think you and others confuse what is 'creepy' to what is criminal. And,even if JS didn't have sex with a boy it does not mean he is innocent or not a molester. My article says nothing about sex acts. Perhaps those charges would be overturned with a new trial, but many of those charges would stick based on his own confessions. Let me ask you, if a 10 year old's uncle lived with the family for 3 years and every night went into the child's room and laid on the child for 15 mins (even with clothes on) would you call that creepy or criminal?

    2. Eileen, I'm trying to understand how the McQuearys, Dranov, Fisher's wrestling coach, Dottie S, and all those who were OK with the 1998 finding of unfounded explain their comfort with Jerry's obvious stretching of appropriate boundaries with boys.

      What certainly seems abusive and WRONG to me apparently did not trigger these folks to act... to immediately stop Sandusky's unsupervised time with underage boys.

      Hence my question. Is/ was the behavior that Sandusky admits to considered OK by some people? Would the McQuearys, Dranov, Raykovitz, and Heim have needed a report of sexual penetration to call the cops??

      I would have put a stop to even creepy behavior with my son or nephew. So why was Jerry's KNOWN behavior not stopped by any of those listed above? They likely were not all motivated by money. Or maybe so...

    3. rdk - Good questions. I too wonder why the media never had child protection experts comment on why Sandusky's naked bear hugs did not raise red flags with CYS and DPW in 1998.

      Have standards changed that much since 1998 or did Sandusky get a free pass because he was known to CYS and DPW via his children's charity, adoptions and foster parenting?

    4. It seemed obvious tro me that CYS was footdragging on the 1998 case. Schreffler called up CYS's Miller, who told Schreffler he'd have to get back to him about who would investigate. Then Miller was assigned to the case, but he told Schreffler after the first day's interviews that CYS had called a meeting "to decide what to do" (according to Schultz's note). The note also revealed that CYS was contemplatinig something less than a full investigation, when the note said "Either way, caseworker felt they would interview Jerry."

      As history revealed, CYS never interviewed Sandusky. They punted it to DPW. However, they stayed involved in the case and called the DA's office to stop the UP Police from interviewing Sandusky without DPW present.

      CYS and DPW overlooked much more than naked bear-hugs in the 1998 case. There were at least a dozen signs of possible sex abuse.

      I believe Sandusky got a "free pass" because of his long time association with DPW and CYS through foster and adoptive care programs and The Second Mile.

      As for Dottie, she exposed her true feelings in the Matt Lauer interview when she was asked about 1998 when she first stated she would have been uncomfortable if one of her kids had showered with a stranger. Then she excused Jerry's behavior because "he did it with our kids" and further rationalized it was not criminal because there were no charges filed in 1998. However, the latter is disingenous because the news coverage of the 1998 incident reveals that Schreffler thought there should have been charges and - let's face it -- Sandusky was found guilty of crimes related to 1998.

      As for The Second Mile, it was reported that their VP of Development, Katherine Genovese, told Clinton County CYS that "we had to tell him to back off certain children before." It appears their practice was to move Sandusky along to another child if they got complaints from parents. There will be more revealed about this when the Federal investigation concludes.

  8. While it is obvious that JS has a psycho-sexual disorder, I am profoundly concerned about the lack of physical evidence, the financial incentives of the "victims" to lie and embellish (with Frank Fina's blessing), the obvious perjury of "victims" 5, 9, and 10, and the reason that Frank Fina thought it necessary to fabricate a Hoax involving janitors.

    Eileen's synopsis is excellent...but wait...It also describes the behavior of teachers, coaches, counselors, and youth group leaders. Why would these people want to spend 6-8 hours per day with children if they weren't attracted to them? Is part of this attraction sexual? Every week I hear of a teacher or coach being arrested for inappropriate sexual behavior with a student. Of course a Freehdian analysis would indicate that everyone from the Principal on down "knew or should have known" about the teacher's deviant behavior, and that there were many ordinary events that should have been parsed as "red flags".

    There seems to be a very slippery slope here. Many Middle School teachers exhibit the behaviors listed by Eileen, especially gym teachers. That many of these teachers may be pedophiles has a certain allurement, especially based upon my experiences in the West Shore School district. Who knows what evils lurk in the minds of men?

    1. Trying to judge Sandusky's level of criminality based on the few witnesses presented at the trial is a fool's errand. I agree that there were problems with a lot of the testimony at the trial and that very few victims completely told the truth about the levels of their abuse (and it is the fault of the untrained CSA investigators for taking the victim's statements at face value). A trained CSA investigator would have listened to all the stories and then assessed the credibility based on corroborating evidence. As it was, the abuse levels and the situations in which abuse occurred were inconsistent. I ran this past Jim Clemente who concluded that the prosecutors did not understand the concept of compliant victimization and, as a result, prosecuted Sandusky as the "old man in a raincoat" molester. Clemente also believed that was done to give the victim's a "man's way out." In other words, saying that they were little kids who got overpowered by a big man -- as opposed to victims who were groomed into becoming compliant.

      The former (being overpowered) is also an easier sell to a jury. Compliant victimization can be a confusing concept and jurors often mistake "compliance" for "consent."

      It was an easy choice for Fina and McGettigan to turn Sandusky into a "monster" because the conviction would be easier. However, labeling Sandusky as a "monster" does not serve the public's interest because "monsters" are not serial molesters. Serial molesters tend to be family members, friends, coaches, clergy, and other "trusted" members of the community.

    2. Whether misguided or intentional, Sandusky’s prosecution was very short sighted – it was all about getting the folks in the AG’s office a win rather than a bigger win for the children in the Commonwealth of PA. That the legal system and the child welfare establishment haven’t sounded the alarm about “nice guy” molesters shows me that the focus hasn’t been understanding the problem and fixing it as much as it was limiting responsibility and assigning blame (not to mention meting out punishment) to individuals outside of their collective circles. Trying to move forward in a positive way would have been hammering home the reality that the danger of “old man in a raincoat” molesters, while significant, is less than that posed by charismatic molesters like Sandusky. Thanks to Eileen (and others) for the efforts to raise awareness in spite of the establishment’s disingenuous avoidance of the issue.

      In full agreement with Ray’s comments, that establishment has been enabling future predators through the false narrative that pedophiles’ behaviors are so easily diagnosed. As Mr. Vernon indicates, the behaviors shown by a whole series of people, most of whom are not molesters, are similar to many of those exhibited by Sandusky. Don’t know a good analogy, but the extent to which certain behaviors appear “red” or “green” depends on “filter” used to view them. In 1998 Chambers et al chose to view Sandusky’s behavior with one filter and identified it as “red” whereas as Seasock used a different filter and saw “green” Collectively, the experts tacitly indicated that Seasock’s filter was the correct one to use in evaluating Sandusky’s behavior and he walked away as a free man allowed to have free and direct access to the children participating in his charity-- with any suspicions effectively expunged in the eyes of the child welfare establishment. In 2001, Mike McQueary probably struggled with which filter to use and functionally deferred the decision others. First his Dad, then Dr. Dranov, on to Penn State, and finally to TSM -- all seemed to have used the same, but ultimately wrong filter. With PSU in particular (probably driven by Schultz who had the most collective background across incidents) the choice of filters to apply in 2001 was most likely influenced and/or reinforced by the guidance and actions shown previously by the experts in 1998. Protecting children requires continued education about the proper len to use in evaluating behavior – it is profoundly bizarre that this call isn’t coming from those with the responsibility children’s welfare.

  9. Hi all,

    A big clergy-abuse story is discussed at the link below (from yesterday). Lots of info relevant to the Sandusky story. Entire transcript of a recent deposition of a priest integrally involved since the 1980s in "handling" clergy abuse charges. Entire investigative report by Minnesota Public Radio. Recent NPR radio discussion (Diane Rehm program). Attorney Jeff Anderson, also involved since the 1980s. Trials upcoming this year.

    A quick read through some of this leads me back to where I was when I first heard the Mike McQueary story. Is there/ was there a cultural acceptance of adults having sexual relationships with adolescents, particularly men with boys? Perhaps under the guise of teaching boys about "the birds and the bees"? Jerry apparently referenced his own similar relationship with his father (above, from Eileen's report).

    I wonder if, to really begin protecting kids, we should consider some type of Truth and Reconciliation effort. Step out of the litigious approach, focus on the harmful impacts to kids, focus on changing the culture. Just as South Africa is progressing into a different culture, perhaps the US can progress such that tomorrow's adults will recognize the long-term negative effects of adult-child sexual activity.

    Thank you all for this insightful education.

  10. And just today, another report of an attempt to expose, learn from, and progress away from a country's shameful treatment of children:

  11. Shortly after the scandal broke,I remember a sensible attorney who knew Gricer, say on a tv panel, "the reason Sandusky was not arrested in 98 is because his behavior did not rise to the level of sex abuse (no erection etc which at that time was necessary for sex abuse). Question, if grooming does not lead to sex, is it sex abuse? No disrespect but I do not think it does. If theory is so every man that kissed me would be guilty of sex abuse!

    1. Under PA C.S. 23 § 6303. Definitions.

      (1) The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist another individual to engage in sexually explicit conduct, which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
      (i) Looking at the sexual or other intimate parts of a child or another individual for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire in any individual.

      So, by that definition, actual sex does not have to occur -- only that the perpetrator gratifies a sexual desire by committing the act. V6 stated he did not see an erection, so Gricar's explanation would fit that individual crime. However, Sandusky was convicted of the V6 crimes of Corruption of Minors and Endangering the Welfare of Children by course of conduct.

      18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4304. Endangering welfare of children.
      (a) Offense defined.--
      (1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the
      welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that
      employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he
      knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a
      duty of care, protection or support.
      (2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an
      official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of
      a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63
      (relating to child protective services).
      (3) As used in this subsection, the term "person
      supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than
      a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training
      or control of a child.
      (b) Grading.--An offense under this section constitutes a
      misdemeanor of the first degree. However, where there is a
      course of conduct of endangering the welfare of a child, the
      offense constitutes a felony of the third degree.

      As for your last statement, if you were consenting adults or within legal age limits, the activities would not be considered grooming.