The Obfuscation of Jerry Sandusky

My last post looked at whether Dottie Sandusky, wife of Jerry, really believed in his innocence. Today I want to use information gleaned from Jerry's words himself to analyze why she had good reason to doubt her husband's innocence. Some of this information is taken directly from Jerry's mouth in his prison interview in early 2013. There is also evidence from other interviews like the one by Jo Becker of the NY Times, along with testimony in court by professionals of Jerry's psychological profile.

Let's start with an incident most people who follow this case, and many who don't, know about. Early on after Jerry's indictment he called in to an interview with Bob Costas. The interview starts off normal enough, with Jerry stating "I am innocent of those charges".

However shortly afterwards there are questionable responses to some other questions. Shortly into the interview this exchange occurs:

Costas: During one of those conversations, you said, "I understand, I was wrong, I wish I could get forgiveness," speaking now with the mother. "I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead." A guy falsely accused or a guy whose actions have been misinterpreted doesn't respond that way, does he?

Sandusky: I don't know. I didn't say, to my recollection that I wish I were dead. I was hopeful that we could reconcile things

I find this exchange curious. Sandusky's response is that he didn't  recall saying he wished he were dead. He did not dispute that he was wrong, or that he needed forgiveness. He was hopeful to "reconcile" things. If he did nothing wrong what was to reconcile? It also casts doubt on Dottie's implication that it never happened, as Jerry does not deny the conversation took place.

Then we come to the most infamous exchange of the interview. Costas directly challenges Sandusky with the following question:

Costas: Are you a pedophile?
Sandusky: No
Costas: Are you sexually attracted to underage boys?
Sandusky: Am I sexually attracted to young boys?
Costas: Yes
Sandusky: Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys

Sandusky repeats the question/statement twice and doesn't say no to sexual attraction until his third sentence in the second answer. Do you find that strange? In the audio it is even worse. You can hear the pause, feel the searching. Luckily for us Sandusky addresses this exchange in his prison interview from early 2013.

On page 82 of his prison interview, Jerry tells us the story of the Costas interview, more specifically of that question. When asked why he hesitated when answering that question he states:

Sandusky: So I was not expecting anything like that. When that question was asked I’m
thinking my thoughts all were on what I call the victims of this. I was thinking
about all the people that gotten hurt. My frame of reference was not whether or
not I was sexually attracted to boys. Ok, my frame of reference was all these
people that were going to get hurt. My frame of reference was to always to try
help. I didn’t think in those kinds of terms. I was taken aback. I’ve never been
asked anything like that in my life. I said to myself, I want to be honest. I want to
clear. I want to be fair. And when he asked the question, I was trying to think in
my mind, is he saying do I like young people? You know, what is he saying? I
was trying to get it into my mind. Yeah, I love young people. I enjoy..My two
favorite groups are the young and the old. One doesn’t know any better and the
other just doesn’t care. So those kinds of thoughts were going thru my mind. It
really didn’t even register with me that that would be a question to ask.... I don't
know.

There are a couple of real telling points in there. Is Sandusky actually trying to make us believe that after being arrested for alleged rape and molestation of children over decades that he never expected a question about his sexual attraction? That just doesn't stand up to any logic or scrutiny. Secondly Sandusky is implying somehow that the question was confusing, when it was quite clear. Lastly is his description of the two groups of people he loves. Look at what he says about the young. "One doesn't know any better". Exactly the kind of trait which makes them easy prey. Combine that with the following paragraph from the interview on page 81:

So the young "don't know any better" and when you choose disadvantaged and troubled young you have easy ways to raise suspicion about their claims. 

These signs of guilt and hesitation are evident in other interviews as well. If you look closely at the interview with Jo Becker, around the 4:00 mark you can see the hesitation in answering. You can see the inability of Sandusky to make eye contact. He looks down, he looks away. He looks everywhere but at the interviewer when answering about details in regards to the 2001 case. 

A little later in that interview Sandusky has to actually be interrupted by his lawyer to clarify something he says. Examining the interview around the 7:00 mark he discusses the Costas question and again claims to be caught off guard. He then explains that he is "attracted" to young people, both boys and girls. However his lawyer quickly interjects from off camera "not sexually". Seems once again Sandusky left some doubt there as to his true feelings.

Looking a little more at Jerry's prison interview certainly provides us with other nuggets of inconsistency and consciousness of guilt. The first one comes very early on page 3. In discussing the parameters of the interview Jerry states that one issue is "I don't want to incriminate myself". Incriminate yourself of what? You are claiming you didn't commit any crimes. That is an interesting statement from an "innocent" man. However when you read the interview closer you can see why he might have said that.

On page 40 Jerry steadfastly refuses to give out the name of alleged Victim 2, but then goes on to describe enough detail to make it fairly easy to track him down. Sandusky offers multiple details about his high school graduation, wedding, his senior football season at high school, and after Ziegler moves on offers up "He's in the marines". Does that sound like Sandusky trying to hide his identity?

Why might Sandusky want this man found and publicized? Perhaps it's because Sandusky had already met with this alleged Victim 2 in the summer of 2011. Yes, Sandusky had been in contact with multiple witnesses against him in the trial. Was this an attempt by Sandusky to elicit information about what they might say or perhaps an attempt to shade their testimony his way? Maybe Sandusky knows that he didn't abuse the victim that night in 2001, but had on other occasions. Perhaps Sandusky knew anyone finding this victim would muddy the case against him at this point. Either way it's pretty clear he had no issue with people "finding" this victim. His lawyer though is on record publicly saying he has doubts this is truly Victim 2. 

Another red flag regarding Victim 2 is Sandusky's version of how Tim Curley contacted him about the 2001 incident. On page 50 of the prison interview Sandusky concedes that he denied the incident originally in 2001. When asked why he states:

Sandusky: Because I didn't know what I did. I was trying to figure out who was in the shower with me or whatever.

Remember Sandusky has steadfastly said he never did anything wrong. So regardless of what you did, why would you deny that you were in that shower if you did nothing wrong? Is it because unlike what you state in other parts of the interview you indeed knew that 1998 was a big deal and if you were caught in the shower again it would cause suspicion? Or is it because you had taken multiple boys into the showers in this time frame and you were honestly trying to remember which one it was and what you had actually done? 

With regards to his initial denial Sandusky seems confused about whether he immediately changed his tune or if it was at a second conversation. This would be a key point because if there was any amount of time in between it would give ample opportunity for Sandusky to speak with Victim 2 and get his story straight. 

When analyzing further Sandusky's claims about his memory and whether we should believe it we can also look at the identity of the witness to the 2001 incident and how Mike McQuery came to be known as that man. The first stop is page 38 of the prison interview. There the following exchange takes place:

Ziegler: So Tim Curley never told you it was Mike McQuery?
Sandusky: No. Tim Curley said it was a man or a woman (laughter). 

To those following the case this should be a golden nugget that Sandusky is lying and trying to cast doubt on others. At no time has anyone, not Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Paterno, or the OAG ever stated that the witness was a woman, ever. That's a pretty big detail to mess up. So big that it is impossible to believe Sandusky actually believes it. The only possible way this could be true is if the rumors that Sandusky was witnessed in other buildings with kids are what Sandusky is melding with the 2001 incident with McQuery. 

Additionally Sandusky then clearly in his interview lies about when he knew it was McQuery who was the witness. In fact Sandusky waffles several times on this. On page 66 is the exchange below:

If you look closely there you will see that Sandusky first implies that McQuery's name came out when Curley, Spanier, and Paterno's did. Then he backtracks. According to several local contacts I have spoken to it was common knowledge around town though that McQuery was "the GA" for a while prior to the indictment so it's likely Sandusky knew this already and is just looking for a way to claim he didn't. 

Additionally he waffles back on forth on when he even knew there was a grand jury. First he claims he didn't know until June 2011 (page 63). Then he changes it to "spring" of 2011 on page 65 and this is because his son Matt testified. Then you can see the exchange above where he professes to know of the March 2011 Ganim article, specifically for use of the term GA. So here we again have obfuscation of the timeline by Sandusky. Perhaps he is remembering incorrectly, which could be the case. However others are asking us to trust that he is the one recalling memory from 2001 about Victim 2. It seems more likely to me that OAG had already at this point found the notes on the file and knew the correct dates. 

I am not a professional psychologist. I have no professional training in behavior or psychology. So you don't have to trust just me, you can trust the professionals who examined Sandusky for his trial. They are very interesting, especially in light of the fact that Sandusky refuses to delve into the results of a lie detector test he took. John O'Brien testified to the results of psychological examinations of Sandusky on June 19, 2012 . His words are telling:

Notice the consistent theme. Sandusky is trying to bias the tests, and doing so by portraying himself in a more favorable light, or overly positive terms. This is a consistent theme if you analyze his words in his interviews too. He always says he was trying to help the kids, or be family. He never acknowledges truly how what he is doing may be harmful, or that it should be concerning since he was warned. Dr. O'Brien tells us that Sandusky fit two possible profiles.

Those two profiles he fit best are histrionic personality disorder, a disorder characterized by emotional excess, attention seeking behavior, flirtatiousness, and inappropriate seductive behavior. The other is narcissistic personality traits, a condition which can be described as one "in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process." (my emphasis added). His narcissism is surely evident on page 45 of the jailhouse interview where he speaks of himself in the third person. 

When you add it all up you see a picture of a man trying to obfuscate the truth. Delusional to the point of destructiveness, and concerned with portraying himself in the best possible light. He uses lies, half truths, misdirection, and the weakness of his victims to do so. He is so concerned about portraying himself in a positive light that he ignores the wide swath of destruction he has left behind. Everyone is out to get good ole Jerry. Jerry has never done anything to hurt anyone. Jerry says so. Don't believe it.