Sandusky rearrested on new charges

As often happens in cases like these, two more victims came forward following the media coverage of the Penn State child rape scandal. This led to the police rearresting Jerry Sandusky:

Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested Wednesday at his home in State College, Pa., on new sexual abuse charges involving boys.

Authorities showed up in four unmarked cars to detain Sandusky, NBC News reported. He was out on bail from his initial arrest almost a month ago on charges of sexually abusing young boys; bail on the new charges was set at $250,000.

“Today’s criminal charges were recommended by a statewide investigating grand jury, based on evidence and testimony that was received following the initial arrest of Sandusky on November 5,” Attorney General Linda Kelly said in a statement.

Like before, the grand jury released a presentment of the testimony given. It reads much like the previous one, with one notable exception

Victim 9 testified that he spent overnights in the Sandusky home on numerous occasions between the ages of 12 and 15. He further testified that despite being in the Sandusky home on these numerous occasions, he had “barely any” contact with Sandusky’s wife during his visits. He specifically testified that she “never” came into the basement when he was there.


Victim 9 described a pattern of sexual assaults by Sandusky over a period of years. Many of these assaults occurred in the basement bedroom of Sandusky’s residence. The victim testified that Sandusky forced him to perform oral sex on numerous occasions. Sandusky also attempted to engage in anal penetration of Victim 9 on at least sixteen occasions and at times did penetrate him. The victim testified that on at least one occasion he screamed for help, knowing that Sandusky’s wife was upstairs, but no one ever came to help him.

In other words, like McQueary, Sandusky’s wife Dottie had a chance to stop a rape but apparently chose not to. It is far worse than what happened at Penn State because Sandusky made the boy stay in the basement the entire time he was at Sandusky’s home. It is possible Sandusky did this to hide his alleged behavior. It is also possible, given the boy’s testimony, that Dottie asked Sandusky to basically keep it in the basement.

We will wait and see how much outrage this bit of information garners. I suspect it will not get much attention at all, and that is a shame because what happened to Victim 9 is usually how abuse occurs. In most cases someone knows. Someone hears something or sees something and decides to do nothing. Fortunately, it is not just wrong to do, but criminal. Dottie Sandusky could potentially face charges for failing to report the abuse or as an accessory to abuse, unless the prosecutors decide to cut a deal with her.

2 thoughts on “Sandusky rearrested on new charges

  1. Analysis of time lines across the To Presentments, along with revealed patterns of conduct is very worrying.

    The latest Grand Jury presentment shows some interesting details that are different to other victims. I note that the Grand Jury is still sitting – and so the content of the latest presentment will be carefully drafted so as to not compromise ongoing investigation. There are also at least 2 other investigations on going which relate to individuals who are reported to be minors. Reports as to the total number of ongoing investigations, and through which agency, vary.

    It should be noted that Dottie was a volunteer for Second Mile, and as such she should have been subjected to all relevant inductions, training and supervision. If she was not, or the Second Mile policy practices and procedures were defective, it also has implications. If Dottie knew or reasonably aught to have known, she could also face being sued and the transfer of the Sandusky home from joint ownership to just her will leave Mrs “S” facing civil cases for damages.

    Victim 10 was approached in 1997 and there was integration into the Sandusky household – but by 2004 Victim 9 there was marked shift in the conduct of Sandusky, Dottie and the household in general. This has to raise most serious questions as to who knew what and when. Why the shift in behavior and attitudes?

    Previously, it has been shown that Victims were more integrated into the Sandusky Household. They knew Dottie, other kids and family members, took part in family events. Then Victim 9, reportedly abused between 2004/2008, shows a different pattern – isolation – little to no contact with Sandusky household. This also agrees with Victim 1’s reports.

    Sandusky approached Victim 9 via Second Mile but from an early point took the relationship out side of Second Mile activities. The child’s school was also used as a venue for the child to be intercepted. Why were these actions not noted by Second Mile and acted upon? Even if as Second Mile claim there were not aware of the 1998 or 2002 concerns and reports, basic best practice coupled with robust Policy, Practice and Procedure should have raised red flags. Kids were also still being produced by Sandusky as PSU sporting events and other events – which Second Mile Employees were present at.

    It is indicated that Sandusky was using his connections with Second Mile to present an image and aura of care to gain access to his targets. His connection with Second Mile was known and this allowed him to present his activity as connected to Second Mile even when it was not. It has the hallmarks of representational Fraud.

    The missing expenses records from Second Mile become more suspicious.

    That shift in the patterns of Sandusky’s behavior with Victim 9 indicates that early concerns from 1998 and 2002 were known about within the Sandusky Household. It has never been made clear in the 1998 police investigation addressed the House and people living there – but this suggests it did. The 2002 removal of access to PSU facilities with kids also lacks comment from Sandusky and household members. Concerns as to cover up and risks of adverse media have to also extend to the Sandusky household and not just PSU and Second Mile. There was no Vacuum or Massive Boundaries to cross – there was close integration across all three.

    There is the reference to at least 2 bedrooms in the Sandusky house being empty – but the house has five bedrooms, which indicates at least 3 used and as many as five. There is no available time line for who was resident in the home at various times, but it is indicated that The Sandusky’s adopted adult children did visit and stay over night with their own children. This could well implicate at least one of them along with Dottie. Marital issues for at least one adopted child and concerns that grandchildren should not be left at the Sandusky Home unattended by parent over night post date 2002.

    The presentment indicates that at times Victim 9 was made to stay specifically in the basement and even eat meals alone there – ignored by Dottie and others. This indicates that others present at the house would have been unhappy with the presence of the child. It also indicates that it was agreed that the victim could be in the house, but not acknowledged as present. That is a very adult attitude of denial and would have involved more than just Dottie. Other Adults present would have had to collude with this arrangement and have reason to collude. There is no readily available rational explanation for such collusion other than Plausible Deniability.

    Victim 10 also alludes to this issue of isolation and sole use of the Basement, indicating that concerns from 1998 were known in the Sandusky Household. It is not clear from the presentment how many years Victim 10 was targeted – so it is possible that change occurred post 2002, but that is not the implication of the Presentment .

    Again Victim 9 (2002/2004) makes it clear that he had little contact with Dottie – and Victim 10 was tailgating with the Sanduskys in 1997. Other Victims also reported integration on the Sandusky household and interaction with Dottie, the Sandusky’s adopted children and other children ( presumably foster children in the Sandusky home.).

    Outside the home it was alright to be seen with the Sandusky household members and associates – yet within the house the victims were treated as none-existent. Post 2002 there are clear indications that Household integration was reduced and even denied to occur. Isolation of Victim within a household structure as a method of denial by household members is a known factor is survivor histories.

    The time line is not clear – but it would appear that Sandusky started to take targets away to other venues and events post 1998 – a shift to high risk activity that needs to be accounted for.

    The implications of exclusive use of a Hotel Swimming pool are very odd. Victim 10(1997) talks of the use of PSU facilities (Holuba Hall and Outdoor Swim Pool). Victim 9 (2004/8) makes no mention of any activity on PSU property, but of isolation even within public venues. Activity via school also features – similar to victim 1.

    The mention of PSU facilities on campus indicates that the abuse of Victim 10 was over by or shortly after 2002 – but the actions of isolation and seclusion in the basement indicate that from 1998 there was aberrant activity and views present in the Sandusky household which instigated the isolation.

    Victim 1 appears to be co-incidental with Victim 9. Victim 1 is of interest due to the contact via school and the use of school sporting facilities by Sandusky. It is indicated that it was in 2002 that Sandusky sought out this school as a venue – and it is also indicated that the school and it’s students were well known to Second Mile. There are clear implications of premeditation by Sandusky in seeking out venue and vulnerability to reach targets, and a shift in modus operandi once excluded from PSU facilities. The change of venues allowed activity to continue with minimal oversight by others who may have already had concerns or knowledge.

    Sandusky is seen in public interviews as being bungling and poorly spoken, yet others have commented that he is highly intelligent, plans well and quiet as to his activities and planning. Reports of historical pranks as far back a child hood also show planning, in sight in how to manipulate others and achieve the desired outcomes. Historical report also indiactes that Sandusky was seen in a positive light whilst in a sports environment and with team players – yet other age related activity outside of that circle was either none existent or of poor quality. That activity seems to have been focused around sports is not unexpected as he knew how to play the game and present appearances from past experience and learned behavior.

    The most significant implications are the changes in Modus Operandi – post 1998/2002. Looking at both presentments it indicates that Early On Sandusky used his home more, with family integration – and post 1998/2002 there was an increase in other venues being used. The indications of grooming activity and molestation in public venues, along with seeking out privacy in accessible venues, is also consistent with that. The implication that once privacy was compromised 1998/2002 the behavior continued despite higher risk is consistent with a pedophile – and rationalization of behavior as normal and acceptable – even down to continuing using venues that he knew how to present himself within. The use of venues such as Hotel Swimming Pool and School Sporting facilities when they were empty also indiactes premeditation.

    The patterns of premeditation and rationalization are not something that is learned at a late stage in the life of a Pedophile, but from an early stage. I would be concerned that there has been a significant pattern since puberty – covering at least 50 years.

    Given the change in Modus Operandi and the time frames Dottie Sandusky had to be aware of them. There is reason to suspect that she was aware of much prior to 1998/2002 and willfully ignorant – with that changing 1998/2002 – and willful ignorance being maintained by collusion in the changed Modus Operandi and willful isolation of victims within the household.

  2. Pingback: Sandusky’s trial begins today | Toy Soldiers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s