Does Dottie Sandusky REALLY believe Jerry is Innocent? What her Interview with Matt Lauer can tell us.

Much has been made of Dottie Sandusky's recent round of TV interviews, mainly with Matt Lauer on the Today Show, trying to argue for her husband's innocence. Many people have focused on why she said what she said or acted how she acted over the years. Some think she had to know who her husband was, some think she is in denial. I wanted to take a different angle today and focus more specifically on what she said and what we can glean from it. Dottie went on TV with her best poker face, but at the same time she did reveal some tells. 

The man who sat by Dottie's side, self-proclaimed "documentary film maker" John Ziegler, has been vociferous in his defenses of Dottie. He states that for the victims to be telling the truth that Dottie has to be lying. So let's use Dottie's own "testimony" here to evaluate her claims and the "truth-seeker's" failure to correct the factual record.

Unfortunately there is no official transcript of the Today show video which began her tour but you can view it online in it's entirety here to see for yourself.

The first very important exchange occurs around the 14:50 mark:

Lauer: So what was it like to sit in that courtroom and hear story after story after story leveled, and charges, leveled against your husband?

Sandusky: Because I knew that the majority of the stories were not completely true.


This is key. It is key for the simple reason that Dottie Sandusky never heard those stories leveled by the accusers in that courtroom as she only attended the trial the day she testified, which was long after the victims had done so.

 When questioned on Twitter about this topic Ziegler simply stated it was "meaningless error":

@micheIUP @wensilver LOL yep, U got me. I did not correct Matt Lauer in meaningless error in question to someone else. You've cracked case!
— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) March 30, 2014

So is it relevant that Dottie and Ziegler allowed it to be implied she personally listened to the accusers charges first hand in court when she didn't? John would never stand for such a lie to go unchallenged if it hurt his argument but here he did because it helped him. As an expert (supposedly) in "media malpractice" Ziegler knows full well why this is an important point, optics and perception. Viewers would think that Dottie was there cheering on her man from day one, all the time, against these lying kids. 

Why did Dottie and Ziegler think it was "meaningless" that Dottie did not show up to support her husband? Perhaps it's because viewers might reasonably conclude that Dottie's absence is a tell that she knew her husband was guilty? If she truly believed her husband's innocence she would be there front and center in court, right? I really wish Matt Lauer would have had this correct and could have pressed this point. A great question would have been "Why didn't you support your husband by coming to his trial?"

This was not the only instance of troubles with what Dottie said to Matt Lauer.

Starting at the 37:00 mark of the interview is this exchange:

Lauer: Can you give me an example of something that he told you that he was truthful about that hurt? What were you referring to there?

Sandusky:  Gee that's hard to decide. To say. Of the...I can't really think of anything.  He told.. I guess..maybe it was the 98 incident.  He told me about that. He told me exactly what happened when that happened. 

Lauer: What was your reaction when he told you about showering with that young man in 1998?"

Sandusky:  I didn't think anything about it because he showered........he showered with our kids."

Notice how Dottie answers the question about what hurt her with Jerry telling her "exactly what happened" about the 1998 incident but then quickly switches to saying that she "didn't think anything about it". Which is it, did it hurt or did you not think anything of it? If this was "who Jerry was" and he was doing nothing wrong, why would it hurt when he told you?

The exchange continued:

Lauer: One of the victims said he showered with him and hugged him. In the shower, while they were naked in the shower. Someone did that to one of your children and your children came home and told you that, wouldn't you think that's inappropriate?  That's hugely inappropriate.

Sandusky: I would. Yes, but, I would..I...I..I don't necessarily know that that happened. And maybe it did. Maybe Jerry said (trails off).

So what originally was "he told me exactly what happened" about 1998 ends up morphing to "I don't necessarily know that that happened". Is Dottie trying to convince us of her husband's innocence here, or herself? Initially the story she was told by her husband "hurt" and then became something that didn't happen. This is a massive contradiction. Is this a woman trying to rationalize her husband's behavior, behavior that he admitted to? 

The next exchange which raises eyebrows begins at 46:19: 

Dottie: The department of whatever it is, the department of..I don't know the title [Department of Public Welfare]. They...they came in and they checked into it, and they said that there was nothing to it. 

Of course if, as Ziegler claims, Dottie (and himself) knows more about this case than most she must certainly know that this is a red herring and always has been. On this point Dottie is misleading in two aspects. First the only trained, licensed psychologist to interview the child in this case, Dr. Alycia Chambers, did indeed sound the alarm of abuse to the state agencies in 1998 in her report. Second, the investigator who lead that case, DPW's Jerry Lauro, has stated on record that he would have made a "different decision" if he had seen Chamber's report.  Third, University Park police Detective Ronald Schreffler testified that he felt there was enough to bring charges in the case. And finally, Sandusky was in fact convicted for 3 crimes for that incident at his June 2012 trial.

If Dottie truly is as knowledgeable about the case as Ziegler claims, then she would know that 1998 was incorrectly decided at the time. Even the person who at the time indicated no finding now says he was wrong, perhaps he might say "with the benefit of hindsight"?

The other red herring that is used by Zielger and Dottie is that the 1998 victim continued his relationship with Jerry Sandusky without incident. This is typical behavior among preferential sexual offenders. They gradually test boundaries to make their subjects comfortable. However once concerns are raised the grooming stops. This is exactly what happened with Victim 6. Once the boy and mother raised concerns to authorities Jerry Sandusky knew the boy was off limits for further grooming and abuse. Thus the idea that they continued an abuse free relationship for 13 more years is not indicative at all of the initial abuse. 

All of these items lead one to wonder whether Dottie is being one hundred percent truthful in her statements regarding her husband and his innocence. It certainly goes to the credibility of her information. 

I do have true sympathy for Dottie. I don't believe her to be an evil woman from what I have seen. However, she like many others who  were selected by Jerry, was groomed to believe that her husband's behavior was simply "Jerry being Jerry" when it was really the behavior of a pedophile. I have no idea how hard it must be as your whole life comes crashing down around you and to admit that you were fooled by "The Great Pretender." 

I leave you with one last statement, direct from Dottie's mouth. At the 11:42 mark Dottie states: "The kids say I am very naive". 

Those may be the truest words she spoke the entire interview.