Talk:Jerry Sandusky

Old comment

I added a comment on Jerry's son and link to his son's bio on the Eagles page. I believe that it should be mentioned...--Quinzy (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent charges

Jerry Sanduskey was formerly the rhythm guitar player in the band 'David Arvedon and The Psychopaths.' David Arvedon is a 900 pound cannibal. He walks up and down the streets of Pittsburg eating people. What a shark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.123.41 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I took out the part in the first sentence that described him as a "retired football coach and boylover." He has not been actually convicted of anything yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.142.128 (talk • contribs) Lol, when he is convicted can that be officially the first sentence? 65.96.75.136 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should not be described as "anal intercourse". This implies consent. This was a ten year old boy. This was sexual assault. He was sexually assaulting a ten year old boy. Joe771 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment and intend to change "anal intercourse" to rape unless these is a well argued objection, "having anal intercourse" assumes the victim was capable of consent which as a minor he would not be. Exok (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The formulation I have seen that would be more appropriate is: "subjecting a ten-year old boy to anal intercourse". This is certainly better than "having anal intercourse with...", for avoiding implication of consent. I also think it is better than rape -- we might want to wait for the courts to establish that what he did was indeed the crime of rape. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good compromise, although there's no need to make any judgement about Sandusky's actions to say that what was allegedly witnessed - whether it was actually witnessed or not - would have been rape. Exok (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, checking a bit deeper, the word "intercourse" implies mutuality. Without consent it's not intercourse, it's rape, see here.. So I'm not sure I agree.Exok (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I really have no personal objection to the idea that it was rape, and I hope it's clear I'm not trying to defend or protect this guy. But I'm not sure we should use the word rape until a court says it's rape. Another possibility would be "subjecting a ten-year-old boy to anal penetration". In any event, I won't stand in your way if you insist on using "rape" -- but I suspect other editors might. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, of course, you're just addressing the expression for the allegation, not the nature of the allegation. I appreciate your help. I'm going to do the edit and if there's further discussion, fine. Exok (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughtful changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe771 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Having sex with a 10-year-old can be reasonably called rape even if the child accepts the activity. This is a lot different than a teenager who is just under the age of consent. That said, I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "anally raping" linking to an article on anal intercourse. Would a reference to vaginal rape link to vaginal intercourse? It should link to the article on rape. I don't know how to link text myself, but if someone agrees with me, maybe they could change the link? Lauriellen (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to a book called "Touched"?

There is a link on this Wiki to a book supposedly for sale on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Touched-Jerry-Sandusky-Story/dp/1582613575

Is it real or a joke? I'm guessing a bad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.149.44 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's 100% real, ironically. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow that's hilarious hahahaha. ThurstAsh13 (Malk Montributions) 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Retirement in 1999?

wondering if this was an actual retirement or if he was forced out. He was only 55 years old at that point and many coaches at that level would try to coach as long as they can.

also, probably not too relevant but he is credited with authoring at least 3 other books according to Amazon:

a) Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way b) Coaching Linebackers c) 101 Linebacker Drills

107.43.94.230 (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the books.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Retirement in 1999; Jerry was told by Paterno that he would not be Paterno's successor therefore he would not become Penn State's next Head Coach, this is referenced in the Grand Jury report, Sandusky retired shortly thereafter. (FYI; The friendship between Paterno and Sandusky had eroded over the years leading up to this, however this is not widely known or reported.) (CaptBillWilson (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)).

May need to mention the disappearing district attorney

apparently there was a district attorney that looked at the Sandusky case a long time ago and declined to prosecute and this d.a. then later disappeared and was never heard from again. 107.43.94.230 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That information, if sourced, would be better placed in the Penn State sex abuse scandal article.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-702355 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyteddy33 (talk • contribs)

The district attorney referred to above was Ray Gricar. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

Maureen Dowd - you've got to be kidding

nice job of blaming catholic church for coverup to protect their brand samer old far left crazy ad hominem attck, must be removed, unless the NY Times is your bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.237.209 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Dowd quote is irrelevant and should be removed. It is also unclear how many children Sundusky has. Does he have only 6 adopted children or has he adopted 6 children but has more some of whom are biological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.123.44 (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when has Maureen Dowd been a scholarly reference about anything. My twelve year old daughter writes better researched, more sophisticated book reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.116.51 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC) New York times is a WP:RS. 107.3.62.19 (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Agreed her comment is irrelevant and inflammatory. 76.117.116.171 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to Gaddafi

Can someone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.5.55 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

A Maureen Dowd editorial comment does not constitute 'significant media criticism' and her reference to the Catholic Church's problems\'brand' is both irrelevant and inappropriate. Recommend the entire section be removed. Joevi (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done: It is an example, quite typical of the kind of criticism that has been filling up newspaper pages, and there's nothing wrong with it, particularly as it is properly attributed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Done I just removed it for two reasons.

One, I read the word "significant" in this context to mean both "important and influential" and "many." Dowd is one person.

Two, I strongly disagree that "there's nothing wrong with it" since I can come up with at least two things wrong with it. Conflating the actions of a few confused, pathetic people (Paterno, Curley, McQueary, etc.) with the actions of the Catholic authorities is, if nothing else, a disgusting way of ignoring the sheer number of the Church's victims. The grand jury lists eight victims of Jerry Sandusky. Some news reports are using numbers like 17 and 20. Father John Geoghan, whose decades of abuse were knowingly, intentionally covered by his superiors, assaulted at least 86 children and possibly 130, and that's just one guy.

It reads like Dowd, rather than consider what she was implying, just went to the most obvious, well-known case of a cover up of child molestation. She writes, "Like the Roman Catholic Church, Penn State is an arrogant institution hiding behind its mystique." Uh, that's basically a description of every single old, huge church, college, company, etc. She never explains specifically how the two are relevant to each other.

My first concern can be easily addressed since "criticism...has been filling up newspaper pages." But this column, specifically, is a bad example of good criticism. CityOfSilver 01:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

By "nothing wrong" I mean it is entirely in conformity with relevant policies/guidelines. Your own dislike for it, evident here, is not relevant, and it's surprising that an experienced editor such as yourself believes it would be. Dowd's comment is a good example of the kind of commentary this case has been receiving and belongs in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So one article is "significant coverage?" For what it's worth, your guess is precisely wrong about how I reacted to the article. On a personal, doesn't-matter-to-anybody-else level, I mostly agree with its sentiment. (Do I agree with Dowd that these people are all awful? I do.) I just don't see how it adds anything to readers' understanding of Sandusky, or even how it supports the "significant coverage" standard we're trying to meet. CityOfSilver 23:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained, it is an example of the kind of coverage this incident is receiving. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. CityOfSilver IS acting as an experienced editor - he is separating OpEd from Fact. Wikipedia is an 'Encyclopedia' not an editorial page. Dowd's comments offer up nothing more than her opinion of similar scandals. The reader gains no additional insight into the subject or his actions. Would comments from Jon Stewart or Rush Limbaugh also represent 'good example[s]' of relevant content for Wikipedia?Joevi (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, who is confused? The comment from Maureen Dowd (a notable commentator) is properly attributed to her and is not being asserted as fact. If there are relevant comments by Limbaugh or Stewart to discuss, then fine -- but I don't know that they have had anything to say about Sandusky. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant information in the "Sexual assault charges" section

In the paragraph describing Sandusky's bail and possible prison term there is a sentence describing the proximity of his house to an educational institution. I'm having trouble seeing the relevancy here. Am I missing something? Knoxjeff (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandusky is charged with being a pedophile (i.e., molesting young children) ... as I understand it, his house neighbors an elementary school ... perhaps not coincidentally. I don't agree that this information is irrelevant. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

"anal penetration" vs rape

Why is the following worded this way:

According to the indictment, in 2002 assistant coach Mike McQueary, then a Penn State graduate assistant,[21] walked in on Sandusky subjecting a ten-year-old boy to anal penetration. The next day, McQueary reported the incident to Paterno, who informed Curley. Ultimately, it is alleged, the only action Curley and Schultz took was to order Sandusky not to bring any children from Second Mile to the football building, an action that was approved by school president Graham Spanier.[citation needed] The indictment accused Curley and Schultz not only of failing to tell the police, but also of falsely telling the grand jury that McQueary never informed them of the alleged sexual activity.[22]

instead of "raping a ten-year-old boy"? It's not possible for it to be consensual, and undeniably sexual. Nonconsensual sex is called "rape," and the fact that it is anal makes it anal rape, rather than "subjected to ... anal penetration". The euphemism is not really appropriate here. 50.16.85.221 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the exact wording from the grand jury report, specifically the section titled "Victim 2" that starts on page 6. This is in regards to Mike McQueary's testimony: "He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky." So the grand jury is reiterating testimony from McQueary, who didn't, as far as we know, use the word "rape." (Is there a transcript of McQueary's testimony anywhere?) So literally speaking, with no other considerations, the text is correct.

But the text is, as you said, not correct. The article's wording, "According to the indictment, in 2002 assistant coach Mike McQueary, then a Penn State graduate assistant,[21]walked in on Sandusky subjecting a ten-year-old boy to anal penetration," is wrong since it is saying, basically, "McQueary walked in and saw" when the indictment says, in not so many words, "McQueary says he walked in and saw."

And I know, this has little to do with your concern. You're saying that the overriding truth here is that there is no such thing as a 58-year-old having sex with a 10-year-old that isn't rape. I agree, although I can't find any precedent allowing me to say so in the article per WP:OBVIOUS. I'm going to be bold and include the word "rape," but I'm also going to make sure the text says that McQueary, not the grand jury, said that. (Although WP:OBVIOUS might also cover such an edit, since the grand jury said, and I quote, "The Grand Jury finds the graduate assistant's testimony to be extremely credible," then went on to indicate that this finding is why they indicted Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.) CityOfSilver 00:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

appreciated; the article is protected and i couldn't edit it. I'm aware of WP:BOLD and so on, but it kind of seemed to me that WP:OBVIOUS leaned in the direction of it being phrased as rape rather than penetration, but i'm really an ardent foe of wikilawyering and suchlike. thanks for noticing. 50.16.85.221 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Any sexual activity between an adult and a minor is statutory rape. The problem with "Sexual assault" is that it is not specific as to the nature of the act. Groping someone could be considered sexual assault, but that is very different from anal penetration. If we want to intentionally obfuscate the nature of the act then "sexual assault" is suitably vague. But if we want to be informative then "anal penetration" is a more accurate and precise term.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made my support for that option clear above; "sexual assault" is less informative and fails to convey what is commonly used in sources covering this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to express that what allegedly happened is a bright-line violation of the law. The editor who started this thread said, and I strongly agree, that unless it's explicitly stated that a crime occurred, it's too wishy-washy. Someone might interpret what we're saying as, "Uh, well, we know anal penetration occurred, but we can't say 'rape' or 'assault' until Sandusky is convicted." So how do we word it so that the "anal penetration" fact is there, as is an unequivocal statement that such an act is a crime? I'm going to go with "anally raping" instead, since I also agree that "sexually assaulting" reads a little like censorship, even though I definitely did not mean to censor anything. CityOfSilver 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the term sodomized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.227.29 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If people are wondering why Sandusky is so reviled, they can come here and get the specific, graphic details. In the US, the word "sodomy" doesn't specifically indicate what happened. CityOfSilver 23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on McQueary's testimony at the perjury trial of Curley and Schultz, as well as his pre-grand jury written statement, as well as his testimony at the actual trial, he DID NOT witness Sandusky raping a boy. McQueary stated he heard skin on skin slapping sounds (now easily explained by the testimony of Victim 4, Brett Swisher Houtz, who stated that he and Sandusky often slap boxed in the showers) and that he glanced in the shower to see Sandusky standing behind the boy. However, McQueary's testimony is disputed by the testimony of Dr. Dranov, who stated Mike McQueary never told him about seeing any such thing. Also, the layout of the shower confirms the Dranov testimony of a boy sticking his head around a corner and being pulled back.71.179.105.108 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed today that there is a CNN piece that specifically addresses this very topic. It's from 20 Nov: [1].. Evenrød (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

seriously guys..this is like too graphic. i think there should be a warning or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.240.201 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky's ethnicity.

Where does it say that Jerry Sandusky is actually Polish? His last name Sandusky is spelled with "sky" not "ski" ("sky" is not Polish, but this spelling was used by Jews, Russians, and Ukrainians). A vague reference is made to his grandparents, but no location is named... and the source that's cited as reference for the alleged Polish background does not actually name the ethnicity. This seems to be very poor editing, and can even be considered misleading. But, the page is locked preventing honest users from removing the claim until further research can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sandusky writes in his book "Touched" that his grandparents came from Poland, see p.22-23. They spelled it "Sendecki" and the spelling apparently changed with their son.[2]. See also [3]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• The reference material that was provided above only proves my point. The book does state that his grandparents came form Poland, but it does not say that they were ethnic Poles. Don't forget that Poland before WWII was a multi-ethnic country where Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Jews and even Lithuanians (who commonly spelled their names in Polish) lived within the borders of the Polish state, and Poles only comprised 55 percent of the population. So, to say that his grandparents were "Polish immigrants" implies that they were ethnic Poles. So, I ask that the entry be amended to note that. The article should state: "His paternal grandparents emigrated from pre-war Poland." Thus, acknowledging their nationality, but not necessarily their ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• If Sandusky was a molester, its not because he was Polish. He refers to his grandfather in the book as "Jaja" which is a polish term for grandfather. "Bucka" is probably a species of similar Polish terms used for grandmother, which is term he uses. He also talks about his grandfather going to the Pulaski club where "older Polish men" would meet. Only ethnic Poles would be members of a Pulaski club.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• But my question is this... why then is his family's Polish nationality highlighted, while his Irish background on his mother's side Evelyn Mae (née Lee) quietly omitted. It's seems very odd that you only decide to concentrate on one side of someone's background and totally omit the other? Just to be a bit sarcastic... it's like having a Barak Obama wiki page that lists his Irish background, and leaves out his Kenyan ancestry. So, again I ask that this entry be revised to create a more balanced description. I think that my issue with this page is very reasonable, and the way this article is written does raise questions as to how this section was edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason it is highlighted is because Sandusky self-identifies primarily with his Polish heritage, just like Barack Obama is called black when he is technically half-white, and just as white as he is black. But again, who cares if he is Polish? Your main concern seems to be something about "omg someone of polish heritage is a child molester," which is not what the story is about.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Cleaned up the wording of the family bio section to make it a bit clearer.--Microedt (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Milowent you clearly have an agenda here, I do not know why you reverted the earlier edit which shows that Sandusky is an American of mixed back ground, and not Polish first and foremost. Then you went ahead and locked the page despite that fact that there was no vandalism committed. I want you to explain your decision to do so. Also, your decision to change the wording of the section without adding any new material show clear bias. There was no reason whatsoever for you to make those changes and lock the page. As you notice that the original edit mentioned his mother first, and the father second. But, you went ahead and changed the order of things, than start accusing other people of bias?

Not only that, your edit is created a break in the content. Originally, the section mentioned his mother, than his father... and proceeded to discuss the father's accomplishments. You by accusing others of bias and to the detriment of the article went ahead and changed the order of how things are presented, in turn creating a confused and poorly worded section. Again, you accuses others of bias? Thus I request that the Milowent edit be reverted, since the change did not actually add anything to the section, and in the process diminished the clarity of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Question: Why oh why do the majority of Wikipedia entries about people include the parent's and grandparent's ethnicity at all? I assume to many readers, like myself, it seems strange. Year by year, generation by generation, we are all becoming mixed breeds, and families are moving from country to country. The controversy about his parents being "Polish" or "from Poland" is, to me, hilarious. Who cares? Why would an encyclopedia entry in the year 2011 include this kind of info? Should we trace back his roots and see if he is Aryan? Or a descendant or Moses? Or Neanderthal instead of Homo sapien? It seems to me it is pretty un-PC to over-focus on people's lineage, let alone it being useful in any way. Susan.dicey.k (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Susan.dicey.k

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

The last line of the following quote is incorrect.

"Sandusky answered Costas when asked if he is sexually attracted to young boys:

COSTAS: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?" SANDUSKY: "Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?" COSTAS: "Yes." SANDUSKY: "Sexually attracted, you know, no. I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys.""

The last line of the quote per reference 40 is --

SANDUSKY: "Sexually attracted, you know, I—I enjoy young people. I—I love to be around them. I—I—but no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."

Vienna1027 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done It's strange, every one of those sources wrote it out slightly differently but definitely there was some stuttering there that should be in the article if it's a quote. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Per reference 37 it is "You know … no I enjoy young people I … I love to be around them. " Confirmed by reference 39. I would recommend that we not remove the negation, even if reference 40 does. Sean (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While some other major sources including the one mentioned, reference 37 or various others [4], [5], [6] do include the negation.Sean (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm undoing it. Another reliable reference is this transcript from NBC Philadelphia, and the pattern-of-speech stuff isn't there. It was re-added here, according to Ella Plantagenet, because "there was some stuttering there that should be in the article if it's a quote". Why? With the stuttering included, what Sandusky said and meant are rendered less coherent. I removed that stuff the first time because I honestly had to read those bits two or three times to understand what was being said.

That's also a pointlessly over-sourced section, with apparently each of those six sources serving to do nothing but confirm the quotes. I'm adding NBC Philadelphia, leaving the page with the video embedded, leaving the CNN transcript with the stutter, and removing the other four since their presence serves no purpose. CityOfSilver 19:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I added the stuttering in because it was in the sources, but also because it seems reflective of the strange response Sandusky gave to that question (wouldn't most people just say, "No" without thinking?) Anyways, I'll defer to those more active in this thread, I certainly didn't think it would be a contentious edit request when I answered it (should have known better :)) Ella Plantagenet (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This was also discussed at Penn State sex abuse scandal with similar results. I think it may be appropriate for the unquoted prose to reflect Sandusky's hesitance, rather than the quote; the manner in which he answered was well-covered in the sources and probably deserves inclusion in some form, but consensus is that it shouldn't be in the quote itself to preserve the clarity of its meaning.--~TPW 13:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the talk page for the Penn state sex abuse scandal page, I see what you're talking about, though not anything about this particular quote. However from your valiant efforts to "inject common sense" into the conversation over there, it's clear you have a firm grasp on how consensus has been shaped wrt this scandal, and your explanation makes sense to me. It is definitely more elegant to have the phrase as it currently exists. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Early life and family

Can someone change the order of the family bio, a proper biography will list the mother first, and then the father. But, for some reason user: Milowent went in and changed this order, creating a bit of confusion in how the section is presented. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article originally only listed the father's heritage, because numerous sources show that Sandusky identifies with his paternal Polish heritage. Reversing it because of you are part of a Polish Protection Brigade is WRONG WRONG WRONG. (See [7] - this was before the above IP complainer started claiming they probably weren't Polish even though they were from Poland, which I completely and utterly debunked with this funny thing called sources)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, I just checked the link that you provided above, and as a matter of fact here it is:

Sandusky was born in Washington, Pennsylvania, the son of Evelyn Mae (née Lee) and Arthur Sandusky. His paternal grandparents were Polish immigrants and his mother came from a small coal-mining town.

And look at that... his mother is listed first, just like most biographies list the mothers first, before you changed it. And you call other people bias! This is too much, you are discrediting yourself my friend. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I suspect that Milowent is more literate, so that if he wanted to describe someone as holding ideological predispositions, he would know how to construct an adjective by using the past participle of the word in question, rather than simply throwing in the simple verb in an ungrammatical way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Mr. IP continues to ignore much, but I reordered the first sentence of the section listing the parents names to assuage him. I urge him to read Touched if he has any questions about Jerry Sandusky's Polish heritage and the same's emphasis of it in the book.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Easy with the personal attacks user: Nomoskedasticity... you see, not everyone is as good as you when it comes to editing and grammar, not even Milowent... who has also committed a serious error of "redundancy" when writing an earlier edit (see user: Runame's fix). I guess we need to send that to the Department of Redundancy Department. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I fully expected that intentional redundancy to be rightfully removed. But I knew it would drive Mr. IP crazy. I see the mom's background has been moved back the way Mr. IP would like it by someone, so presumably he is now satisified. I tried to figure out what the mother's hometown really is, but could not. The Touched book is the source of the small Pennsylvania coal mining town claim. His parents actually got married in Wellsburg, W. Va. in 1942, perhaps because Evelyn Mae Lee's family was living there at the time, but I cannot verify that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Coaching Career at Penn State

" Inspired to honor Sandusky, the defense produced an outstanding effort and the Nittany Lions shut out Texas A&M, 24–0, the only bowl game shutout victory for Penn State under Paterno..." Saying that the effort is outstanding violates POV. Somebody who can edit please change this. 24.112.138.114 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That was written by the original author of the article who apparently liked the word "outstanding": "he coached many outstanding defensive squads", "Penn State gained a reputation for outstanding linebacker play", "the defense produced an outstanding effort". I'll see about doing some copyediting to tone it down.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph in this section, "Sandusky officially retired shortly after this investigation, and was awarded "both an unusual compensation package and a special designation of 'emeritus' rank that carried special privileges, including access to the university’s recreational facilities."[26] Spanier approved a lump-sum payment to Sandusky of $168,000.[26]" appears to have been an erroneous copy-and-paste, and clearly does not belong in the "Coaching Career" section.

Ray Gricar disappearance?

I am not suggesting adding this to the article, as it is most likely tendentious, and there is probably more crucial information about Second Mile, insurers etc. We know that there is no actual relation between Ray Gricar's disappearance and the Penn State scandal. References for this info easily found but I'm not looking for them as I'm not thinking this fits into any reasonable article, just storing it here to think about. Personally I'm confused why JS does not confess and save what he can of Second Mile. Anyway...

Sandusky was overheard in 1998 saying of a child 'I wish I was dead.' Sandusky claimed that the word had been mis-heard. The DA Ray Gricar disappeared 20 years later without ever having filed an indictment, and the phrase is the first accusation in the indictment filed by his successor. On 25 July 2011 Ray Gricar's closest relative, his adopted daughter, accepted that he is legally dead.

In 1996 Debra Long alerted authorities that Sandusky is a 'source of fear' for her son Matt, and obtained a court order as recently as 2011. When he turned 18 years old Matt Sandusky declared Jerry legally dad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Createangelos (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Assault Charges

Hi,

I'm requesting some clarification for why this section is so long esp. as things are not yet clarified in a court.

Some things seem irrelevant, such as impressions from a phone in program of what is the nature of Sandusky's attraction towards kids. Him being one of the percentage of people who is attracted to children the wrong way if that is true would be a necessary condition for abuse, but not a sufficient condition.

Here are two references, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197680-454.stm quotes J. Lauro, of the State Department of Public Welfare, who looked into the issue of Sandusky showering with children in 1998, he decided there was no abuse, and he did not 'indicate' Sandusky.

And http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1196149-455-0.stm?cmpid=news.xml#ixzz1goTw9iAm includes a detailed description of the evidence and investigation at the time, and the decision of the DA that there was no case against Sandusky.

A great amount of this evidence appears to be agreed as true on both sides. The presentment states very precisely that (in the 1998 case) they had been wrestling, then later:

"While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the
waist and said, 'I'm going to squeeze your guts out,'"

"Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against
his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to
rinse soap out of his hair."

Later in a wiretapped overheard conversation the mother of the child asked, if Sandusky gave the child a bear hug in the shower, did his private parts contact the child, he answered "I don't think so....maybe," and he refused to agree to cease showering with children.

The facts of these events, and most of the events in the Presentment, are acknowledged by Sandusky; such events are in fact described recently as 'perp by admission' in one of the articles by an authority. Therefore the facts in these earlier cases are agreed, and the issue was one of moral disagreement: Sandusky refused to cease treating children in this way, believing that it constitutes appropriate love and care.

We also know (see the McQueary article) that the recent Mike McQueary testimony is consistent with the Pennsylvania Nephrologist's Dr. Dranov's testimony that he was present when McQueary reported to his father, and what McQueary had reported at the time was hearing slapping sounds in the shower and later seeing Sandusky with his arm around the child's waist. There is no disagreement here about what was actually observed to take place. Very precisely, McQueary reported hearing 'two or three' slapping sounds, before going into the shower room. He did not see Sandusky's hands touching the child but used the word 'fondling' when he reported it because of the overall position of their bodies http://www.dauphincounty.org/_files/3193.pdf.

Also others at the University including a Senior Vice President and the director of Security testified that McQueary himself had only reported seeing Sandusky and the child 'horsing around.' (In fact there is the upcoming perjury trial about it because the presentment calls their testimony 'unreliable.' McQueary himself testified in the preliminary hearing to not having seen any physical sexual contact between Sandusky and v2, and in the earlier case of the child listed as v6, neither did the child himself or his mother).

On the other hand, there is some very explicit testimony in the presentment, which is or was denied by Sandusky, such as Victim 4. Then it is a fact supported from references that either Sandusky (or victim 4) must be lying.

One has to be careful about suggesting a victim may be lying, and if it is an axiom that child victims do not lie, this means that Sandusky is lying about victim 4.

I am sorry to go on at such boring length and so precisely about issues that are emotive to people, but an article should be more clear about reporting facts, statements, and stated beliefs even if they are moral beliefs.

I do not think that Wikipedia is meant to be a conduit for moral beliefs, but to clarify things by giving a clear and non-contradictory account of what is in the references.

For example, all the discussion here on the talk page about particular types of rape in a shower seems irrelevant unless there is a reliable reference for such an event.

Createangelos (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your point, to the extent I understand it, could be addressed via WP:NOTNEWS -- with deletion of some of the excessive detail, including the selection of transcript from the interview. Even the vandalism of his home is not particularly relevant to an encyclopedia. Some editors are likely to be offended by removal of sourced information, so I would suggest waiting to see whether there is further support here before performing edits along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your reply. I note that there is already a similar edit request to mine in the section Talk:Jerry Sandusky#Irrelevant information in the "Sexual assault charges" section. I agree with your interpretation in terms of WP:NOT#NEWS. Journalism such as tabloid journalism isn't helpful.

In the absence of any account of the perjury trial, or factual issues about whether McQueary reported seeing a rape (which are details it is OK to omit in this section I guess as they currently are), I want someone to consider deleting some of the following items of essentially tabloid style news.

(1.) "According to the indictment...." This is good but it should be clarified that the whole paragraph is according to the indictment (if so).

2. "...a televised phone interview..." delete? (see justification above also). Although admittedly having it in print clarifies it so maybe keep this after all.

3. "...Karl Rominger tried to explain..." delete

4. "...Inside edition reports...lives near an elementary school." delete? Living near an elem school is not notable, maybe though the fact that Inside Edition reported it is notable.

There are factual issues about what McQueary saw, what he said to Paterno or not etc currently not included in the Sandusky article here and that is OK, maybe more relevant to the penn state controversy article.

But the four things above especially 3. (which has unmatched quotation marks also and is vague) and 4. are not about notable facts. (note my recent strikethru's having given more thought to three of the four).

Createangelos (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can't say I'm exactly sure how you'd change the article. Maybe you should make some changes being WP:BOLD, they'll be reverted or modified if others disagree. But citing "Inside Edition" in the text of any article is rather sad. Do we report the "teaching proper hygiene" defense floated by his attorney in the article yet? That's golden.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK I have made the one edit that seems reasonable, which is to replace Rominger's explanation of the eight charges in the indictment with Sandusky's from the more recent NY Times article 'in his own words.' Surely Sandusky's own explanation is more notable than the one given by his new lawyer on first meeting. I wasn't sure how to deal with the quotation marks, to specify briefly who is speaking. Without quote marks it runs into the final sentence of the article (thx whoever fixed that). Welcome to revert if anyone disagrees with this edit.

Also a second and very unimportant edit, the discussion of the 13 December press conference by Amendola which was attended by witnesses...seemed to have a poor content to verbiage ratio as it didn't include any information except that the press conference took place, and the text was inserted into the article at around that time, so this is WP:NOT#NEWS. The earlier edit is more important as the defendant's own statement is surely notable. Createangelos (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"However, as of November 16 there are no legal restrictions on his travel, according to Penn State.[33]" - The linked article says nothing of the sort and why would anyone cite Penn State as the source for legal restrictions on his travel? Irish Melkite (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article does make this point, though you're correct to say that it is not attributed to Penn State. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional Charges and Trial

I see that this page has not been edited in a while, and there is now more information that should be included in this article. Sandusky's trial begins Monday for one thing. There is much info in the article that is now out of date and some minute detail that probably does not need to be included. I have added one paragraph about the addtional 12 charges filed in December, and I was going to add a section about the trial. I may spend some time cleaning up and updating info if time permits. Minor4th 01:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2012

I find this line (not including the quotation marks):

"Sandusky and his wife have also served as foster parents. ."

Please remove the extra period at end.

128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit scandal section

The section on the scandal is getting too long. Some of the stuff is a bit long-winded like the initial paragraphs. The reaction section is largely unnecessary. Most of the details are already in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. I'd edit it, but I don't want to have to get involved in yet another edit war/whinefest on this topic. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2012

Clearly, the opening sentence should be changed now to: ... is a convicted child sex offender 45 times over. Let's tell the truth people. It's not slander or libel. It is a fact as of tonight, Friday, June 22 2012. Sandusky is a convicted child sex offender.

98.21.71.90 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked other articles which used the phrase "child molester". its usually linked to child sexual abuse, which is a phrase which wont work in this context, as in "person convicted of child sexual abuse". we have used the phrase "child molester" repeatedly, in relation to people found guilty of such acts. i dont think its too informal a phrase, even if the word "molest" is very imprecise. This is essentially what he is known as now, regardless of its political correctness. so i agree, and made the suggested change to the first sentence. I dont agree we need to state "45 times over", just like we didnt list how many years he was a coach in the first sentence. Oh, wait, im sorry, you listed it as "child sex offender", which is less commonly used, but somewhat more accurate. i have changed it to your chosen phrase.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Andie ▶Candy◀ 09:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For addition to [Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States]

Coach Jerry has objectively qualified into its coverage in similarity of example to Ray McDonald04:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.193.236.38 (talk)

I'm sorry, what is the parallel(s) between sandusky and ray mcdonald and, even more importantly, how do these proposed similarities make sandusky germane to a list of LGBT sportspeople in the United States? PodbertMippy (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Inmate number

Should Sandusky's inmate number be added to the article somewhere? It's 12-0529. Patken4 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so... I don't believe that other articles about prison inmates have their numbers. I can't think of a context in the article in which it would be relevant, as it's only used for internal record keeping purposes. It's not like an ISBN that you can punch in to get more info... --Jtalledo (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Juror "seeds of doubt" but not any reasonable doubt

(I have removed my comment, as it was inappropriate for an ongoing case)

Lede

I recently made some changes to the lede, and as promised in the edit sumary, I'll now attempt to sum up and explain what I couldn't have fit very well into an edit summary:

• Removed "retired": Opening lines do not typically comment on how "active" one is in one's profession, one's vocation, or whatever it is makes one notable; rather they say what one is notable for. And Sandusky isn't notable for retiring; he's notable for coaching football. Fellow convict Phil Spector is still a record producer even if he isn't actively producing records, and Ted Kaczynski is still a mathematician even if he isn't actively...mathematizing? For the sake of comparison, consider Robert Hanssen. He could not be correctly described as "an FBI agent" anymore, because (to the extent that "agent" is synonymous with "employee") he no longer is employed as such and because (insofar as "agent" means something like "representative") Hanssen evidently did not fully represent the interests of the FBI in the first place. The FBI is, after all, an "agency" in its own right, and it decides who acts on its behalf. But "football" is not "agentic" in that sense, and one does not become (or cease to be) a "coach of football" (or a "producer of records") in the genetive sense that one can be hired, fired, or retired as an "agent of the FBI". Sandusky established himself as a football coach and will always possess that identity, regardless of whether he is actively coaching or is inactive because he is retired, imprisoned, committing a crime, taking a nap, or anything else.

• Added "philanthropist and author". Because Sandusky, in addition to coaching football, founded a charity and wrote books. If this comes across to some as "whitewashing", I can certainly empathize with those who feel this way. It's not easy to describe someone who's recently been conviced of child abuse as a "philanthropist". I wasn't personally, subjectively "comfortable" adding those words. Objectively, however, those words are true, and as far as I'm aware they are, really, wholly uncontroversial: Nobody denies that he founded "The Second Mile" or wrote books on coaching.

• Removed "convicted child sex offender" from opening line. There is HUGE WP:BLP issue here, but in order to see that it exists at all one has got to read between the lines. Yes, of course Sandusky was convicted of sexually abusing children, and yes, of course there is a dictionary-definition sense of "criminal" or "offender" which denotes those who have been convicted or found guilty of a crime, irrespective of whatever innocence or guilt might ultimately be "proven" by some test of truth more penetrative than reasonable-doubt. To say that "Jerry Sandusky is a convicted child sex offender", then, is to make an assertion which is, semantically speaking, wholly verifiable. However, there may be better ways than the preceding to get the point across, and in a BLP it is prudent not to confuse sensitivity with censorship. WP:BLP exists for a reason, and that reason lends its "L" to "BLP": Jerry Sandusky is alive. Wikipedia editors and Wikimedia donators are alive. Living people tend to affect other living people, and to be affected by other living people, too. Sometimes, living people even do things on the Internet which affect the ways--and, yes, the odds--that other people will continue living. The fact of the matter is, prison life is not kind to those who have been convicted (or even suspected) of child abuse or sexual abuse. And that may sound like a classic case of "not-our-problem"; but, if a freshly-incarcerated inmate happened to recall one day that Wikipedia had tagged his cell mate as a "child sex offender", then that cell mate (or his estate) has the potential to cast some sort of blame upon the fragile Wikimedia Foundation if any harm were to befall him. It is in our own best interest (if not otherwise in our intuition) to be "sensitive" here. There is a sense in which referring to somebody as a "convicted child sex offender" is--or sounds--like a way of burying in adjectives the core assertion that (regardless of the jury's thought) someone unambiguously committed an offense. Instead, why not take a breath, wait a moment, and spell out the facts which are unambiguous: "Sandusky was arrested and charged with 52 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period...Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 charges"? Indeed, the lede's third paragraph already does exactly that. However, even if we grant that "convicted child sex offender" is intrinsically appropriate and accurate, we may still find it somewhat...sub-encyclopedic. Sandusky did not become famous as a football coach "and" a convicted criminal. The scandal/trial may have enhanced his notability, but that notability did not skyrocket at the moment when the jury read its verdit. Sandusky is just as notable now as he was in the seconds before he officially became a "convicted criminal". His conviction warrants mention in the lede, no doubt, but his criminal status is not the crux of his notability and does not, I think, need to preempt the lede's mention of his other endeavours or to preempt the "objective" third paragraph, which arrives in due time.

• Removed the term "grand jury" from the phrase, "following a two-year grand jury investigation". "Grand jury invesitagtion" made for some fairly poor phrasing, because a grand jury doesn't "investigate". The investigators investigate; the grand jury then decides if the investigators on the prosecution's side have investigated sufficiently well to earn "themselves" an indictment. In Sandusky's case, the invesitagtion did indeed go on for two years, but grand-jury involvement spanned just seven months. Perhaps my approach (i.e., removing "grand jury" outright) was not ideal, but it was at least accurate.

• Removed third paragraph's piped links to Penn State sex abuse scandal and child sexual abuse. Here, complete removal was not my original intent. I had begun an effort to fix a legetimate problem with these links (more on that in a second), I got sidetracked, and I submitted the edit too soon. For that I apologize, although my subsequent effort to remedy the problem was halted by an edit conflict with a wholesale revert of all my changes. The links that I removed do (I acknowledge) belong somewhere in the general vicinity of where they were (and, now, are); however, they should not be piped from terms which don't imply essentially the same topical scope as the linked articles' own titles. The link "Penn State sex abuse scandal" had been piped from the phrase "arrested and charged", the latter of which indicates nothing about either a university or a scandal and which, therefore, renders the former a surprise of sorts. Meanwhile, the words "sexual abuse" had linked to "child sexual abuse". Here, either A) the right half of the pipelink would have to include the currently-delinked words "of young boys" (so as to provide an equivalent to the word "child" on the left) or B) the word "child" would have to have been part of the visible link (so as not to "easter-egg" the term). These two linkage issues, in particular, are easy to remedy, but since I was reverted I'm probably going to WP:0RR, especially since my editing has been somewhat sporadic for some time and I don't know how active a part I'd be able to play in any immediately upcoming discussions. I've also come to find almost anything in excess of WP:1RR to be destructive to a necessary spirit of editorial community. But I do invite said community to consider whether I might have made some valid points and proposals here, and if so then to allow them to be implemented or applied. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't agree that there's a BLP problem, primarily since, as you said, his conviction is a verifiable fact. It is also what he seems to primarily be known for as well. Deleting that and adding all those other titles instead seems a bit much. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What I'd like to see addressed is later in the article, regarding his conduct at the 1999 Alamo and Outback bowls. Perhaps I missed it, but there is mention about there not being double jeopardy to bringing federal charges against Mr. Sandusky. The question I think that this article needs to answer is "Why doesn't or wouldn't double jeopardy apply here?" Does it have something to do with the federal legal system? A brief mention would suffice and answer this question. Otherwise, the other concern is in the Freeh Report section, which -- although I'm sure the first editor(s) thought it may have been implied that the quotes are solely the findings of Freeh -- even with the footnotes/sources, it still appears (at least by casual read) that it may be the opinion of whoever wrote it and not the conclusions of the Freeh report. Perhaps even better formatting can remove this doubt. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)]]

Hi Briguy52748, I'll edit that section in order to make it more clear that it is the Freeh report that is being quoted. The reasoning behind how it is currently written is to better tie in the specific wording of the report and Freeh's remarks with the rest of the narrative flow of the Sandusky article; and to lessen a copy and paste approach. If there's a risk of it being viewed as opinion, then yeah better to rewrite it now. Your feedback is very much appreciated. Evenrød (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Will try to check it out later. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)]]

It seems there are still several issues with this entire article, and the lede in particular. There's definitely a 'front page news' feel to it, with entirely too many details about the recent trial and conviction for an appropriate summary. Given that two sports journalists are apparently cited as "legal experts", this tone is decidedly journalistic and not encyclopedic. If the court case and conviction deserve to dominate this article, then these legal matters certainly deserve better references than ESPN. There are multiple typos, which are to be expected when an article is hastily rewritten and updated. Some of the prosecution's trial arguments are stated as facts, and unsourced at that. A conviction, acquittal or any other result of a trial does not automatically verify anything other than a jury's decision. I believe this NPOV subsection on Accusations is extremely relevant, especially as it uses child abuse as an example. Compare to the leading sentence in this article. I'll try to lend some editing support, but frankly I know very little about Sandusky or the case in point, so I'm sure other editors could do more than just a little cleanup. On a personal note, I find it especially unfortunate to come across a contentiously worded article that verges on decrying something as universally reviled as child molestation. This is exactly the type of subject where NPOV is utterly crucial. [[AveVeritas (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)]]

Victims going back to the 1970's

Note: We shouldn't list the names of Sandusky's victims unless they come forward and make their story public. I couldn't find any sources that the name that was added here had come forward, so I have deleted the message and replaced it with this one. Patken4 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reports are coming out that there some victims are coming forward saying Sandusky abused them as early as the early 1970's source. These would be the first victims from before the 1990's. How should this be added to the article? Patken4 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the way that it has been added is fine to start. Once more is made public about these allegations, and sources develop, this section will be improved and more added. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)]]

Sandusky and child pornography

Reports coming out today that Sandusky is being investigated by the US Postal Service and FBI for sharing child pornography with others as well as sending "seductive" letters to victims across state lines. Should this be added to the article? Patken4 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the Further allegations section, and investigations to that sections title. Patken4 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility of State College Police Dept. in the scandal

From reading the Freeh Report, the State College Police Dept. was involved in the investigation of Sandusky in May, 1998 (page 45). Despite the fact that the State College Police Dept. had jurisdiction over the campus, it declined to pursue criminal action against Sandusky, nor did it apparently refer the matter to Pennsylvania State Police. At the heart of the scandal is the power granted to the University to provide government services on its campus, i.e., the power to hire and supervise a police department. The power and right of the university to operate the campus police had been challenged in court unsuccessfully. (See Rogalski v. PSU, Middle District of Pennsylvania 1988-89) The difference is that when a state actor like a municipal corporation, i.e. State College, fails to properly investigate a crime, it is protected by sovereign immunity from legal liability, but a state affiliated university, has no such immunity.

The State College Police should not get a free pass in their conduct here, which implicitly permitted Sandusky to continue his actions, including his off-campus actions in State College Borough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The State College Police do not have jurisdiction over the campus. The campus is policed by its own police force, the University Park Police Department, who are all trained police officers. Also, PSU houses a deputy sheriff's training academy on its campus. In the 1998 case, the State College Police assisted the UP Police on two sting operations. That was the extent of its involvement. However, based on the evidence in this case, the UP Police performed admirably in its investigation and did MORE than any other entity involved. If there was anyone at fault for blowing the 1998 investigation, it was Jerry Lauro of the Pennsylvania Department of Public welfare. 71.179.105.108 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Images of this man?

I'm new here, but I've been trying to find a free-to-use image of Jerry to put in this article. However, I haven't been able to find any through Wikipedia's Free Image Search Tool or through the top half dozen or so General Collection Links in the Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources or through Google's Advanced Image Search for "free-to-use or share" images of Jerry Sandusky.

A general image search shows that a lot of the images being used out there are either from police reports or the Associated Press. Does anyone know if there is already a prior policy/protocol on how to use/not use these photos on Wikipedia? I've been scrolling through Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and it's related links. And I think I'm just getting more and more confused. Should I just wait for someone who took a photo of the guy by him/herself to post the guy's face here? Airelor (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Airelor. It would be advisable to wait. Per WP:NFC#UUI, pictures of living people are not covered under fair use. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Most likely, it would have to be one someone has taken already. It will be nearly impossible to get one now or in the future.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Added. His mugshot is public domain as a work of the United States government while somebody was performing their duties as an officer. Regards, — Moe ε 04:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to request the mugshots deletion since I was sure it was a federal work. It turns out that wasn't the case and it was a work of the county. I'll be searching for replacement pictures. Regards, — Moe ε 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"A profile emerges"

I have serious concerns about the title of this section and the placement of the content in it. The title is sensationalist and the content should be worked into other parts of the article post haste. causa sui (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No idea how to integrate it though. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Construction of statements under imprisonment

It is fair to say that Jerry Sandusky is currently housed in prison. My issue comes with the subsection "Imprisonment" (under the "Child sex abuse scandal" heading) with the following sentence: "He will be housed in protective custody." Beings as he has been at the SCI Greene since October 30, 2012, shouldn't the going-to future tense of this statement be changed to – assuming its true and it is or has been verified through reliable sources – "He is being housed in protective custody," or some other form of present tense? Just a thought – thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)]]

• Also, I saw under a previous section that a search was on for free use/public domain mugshots of Mr. Sandusky? How is that search coming along, seeing as there is no photo of him currently on this page. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)]]

Personality Disorder???

Didn't Joe Amendola try to claim that Sandusky suffered from some kind of personality disorder as a part of his defense??? This should be included. It was a very obscure personality disorder and I have forgotten what it was.User:JCHeverly 14:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I remember this as well. I don't remember if he was actually diagnosed with it or his lawyer claimed he had it. If he was diagnosed with it, then it could be added. If he is lawyer just said he had it, I'm not sure. It would seem odd to have a comment "Joe Amendola, Sandusky's lawyer, claimed Sandusky suffered from a personality disorder" and not have it come from a doctor. Another potential question is if the disorder is recognized by the AMA or another medical organization. Patken4 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandusky had been examined by a psychiatrist retained by Amendola and the report was entered as evidence. In Pennsylvania, expert testimony is not allowed, unless that individual has direct knowledge of incriminating or exculpatory evidence. That's why Sandusky is serving his sentence in prison and the George Zimmerman Circus dominates cable news right now. I would just like to know what the personality disorder was that he was diagnosed with??? I'm certain it is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.User:JCHeverly 05:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

His lawyers claim he had Histrionic Personality disorder199.133.43.238 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A chunk left out

The second paragraph in the Coaching career at Penn State section talks about "this investigation," but no investigation has yet been mentioned. Clearly, some text has been deleted or moved; as it stands, the paragraph doesn't make sense. Gorthian (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

The link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_in_prison" in the sentence "He will not be eligible for parole until he serves at least 30 years; at his age, this all but assures he will die in prison" is surely pointless and unnecessary.

67.171.24.107 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only pointless but factually untrue. It is well within Sandusky's life expectancy to live to 98 years old and beyond meaning it is not an "effective life sentence". Boilingorangejuice (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubts About Testimony Being From Repressed Memory Recovery

Dear editors, there is a new article by Mark Pendergrast, a well known author of several books, examining whether the testimony used against Sandusky was derived from repressed memory recovery techniques. For those who are authorized to edit, it seems to be the newest and biggest recent news on the subject, and can perhaps be added. the source is: http://thecrimereport.org/2016/09/07/why-jerry-sandusky-may-be-innocent/

Change "child prostitute" to "child sex trafficking victim". Children can not consent so can not prostitute themselves

The section I am referring to

In September 2012, former Philadelphia child prostitute Greg Bucceroni alleged that in 1979 and 1980 Philadelphia philanthropist Ed Savitz brought him from his New Jersey residence to State College Second Mile fund raiser for the purpose of child trafficking.[120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertheadley (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

First Sentence: Probability in Justice System

Dear editors, since there is a lock on the page, I cannot make the simple correction.

"American convicted serial..." should be changed to "American convicted of serial..."

this is due to jury decisions being made on probabilities that never completely equal 1.

==== Should be changed to " American serial child molester" and the retired coach part should be removed.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jerry Sandusky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425163105/http://www.buzzonbroad.com/2011/11/andy-reid-dick-vermeil-on-honorary-board-for-sandusky-organization.html to http://www.buzzonbroad.com/2011/11/andy-reid-dick-vermeil-on-honorary-board-for-sandusky-organization.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_penn_state_child_sex_case_110511Penn
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623175618/http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/22/jerry_sandusky_verdict_former_penn_state_coach_found_guilty_of_child_sex_crimes_.html to http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/06/22/jerry_sandusky_verdict_former_penn_state_coach_found_guilty_of_child_sex_crimes_.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/sandusky-victim-sues-penn-state-over-deliberate-and-shameful-handling-child-abuse-claims

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

The opening statement in Wikipedia "Sandusky is a convicted serial rapist" is flatly inaccurate in a way that impugns the credibility of the rest of the article. Sandusky was convicted of molestation, not rape. Only one rape charge was brought against Sandusky, and it was dropped when the eyewitness corrected the grand jury claim on this in trial testimony. While eyewitness McQueary was passionate that what he saw was sexual, he never described sexual contact or arousal in his multiple testimonies. 71.60.171.200 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: And not likely to be done. Sandusky's complete verdicts shows Guilty verdicts by the jury on no less than nine counts of "Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse" against five victims. These are rapes of underaged victims by any reasonable definition and therefore the sentence in the lead is fully supported by reliable sources in keeping with the policy on biographies of living persons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Case for Innocence section

Per WP:Undue weight concerns, I reverted this "Case for Innocence" material added by Aerkem and AmiLynch. I'll alert the WP:BLP noticeboard to this matter for further input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mark Pendergrast is a well-known writer, and a specialist of repressed memory. His book on the case of Jerry Sandusky should surely be mentioned, and used as a source. I would admit that a dedicated subsection might not be warranted, but I did not find a more logical way to mention the book, any suggestions? The existing article is structured around legal proceedings, while Pendergrast's book is an independent investigation motivated by an academic debate, so it does not fit naturally. Aerkem (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Special Agent John Snedden investigated the case for the FBI to evaluate whether former University President Spanier’s Top Secret security clearance should be renewed and found there was no sexual abuse at PSU in this case, nor a cover-up. John Ziegler, another author (he is also a documentary filmmaker and former broadcaster), also did years of research and came to believe Sandusky was innocent. Certainly a section on this possibility is warranted.

It will quickly be discarded if some explanation is not given, hence the work I put in to write those couple paragraphs. I had intended to add a third as well. AmiLynch (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jerry Sandusky, where I've also pinged you both. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ami, In regards to Mark's book, two reporters for Insider spent over a hear fact checking everything in it. When finished, their editor would not publish it because telling the truth in this case is considered to be too toxic. However, I did just learn that the one of the reporters, Keenan Trotter will be putting out his story in what I hope is in a month from now on Substack. I second your request. Too much has come out, too much has been verified to continue the ruse that Jerry Sandusky is a molester. It is well past the time for a Case for Innocence section. Let's hope Keenan''s article moves the debate forward. Also, I see your comment predates John Ziegler's "With the Benefit of Hindsight," podcast. Because of the interviews, etc. that is hands down the best history for this case. Wikinovice1 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at the reverted edit, I see way too much speculation being put into wikivoice, and a handful of claims which should be attributed stated as fact. Whether or not the community eventually determines that this is WP:DUE for the article, the text that was reverted should stay out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• The WP:BLP discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Jerry Sandusky. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Under the title "What did Joe Paterno really know about the Sandusky scandal at Penn State?", a recent article in the Washington Post reviews the case at length. That article has its own 'case for innocence' section under the subtitle 'The earlier accusers and the Sandusky supporters'. It mentions Mark Pendergrast's book, plus the fact that Elisabeth Loftus would testify in favour of Sandusky in a new trial. John Ziegler is also mentioned. So the theory of Sandusky's innocence is now reflected in a mainstream source. How can we mention some of this in the Wikipedia article? Emulating the Washington Post writer and resurrecting a 'Case for innocence' subsection seems the easiest thing to do. Aerkem (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to this discussion. I tried to add a review of Pendergast's book to the Sandusky page and it was reverted. And now I see you all are aware of it. The citation I was using is from a notable source (Skeptical Inquirer Magazine) and it is secondary (a book review). I was really interested when repressed memories was mentioned as that is a pseudoscience and the WP page is a mess and hopefully soon about to get a rewrite. So my two-cents is that we can't use Pendergrast's book as a direct citation, but reviews of the book can be used. Something needs to be added, or people like myself are going to keep trying to add it, it is a very detailed book that must be mentioned. The author is notable so we have no choice.Sgerbic (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Given what has been stated at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Jerry Sandusky, I'm not sure. If there are criticisms, at least one criticism should also be added. MPants at work, what are your thoughts on Sgerbic's addition, which I reverted? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I am new here and have no clue about Wikiediting. It seems like you are familiar with the case for innocence which has gained a lot of traction of late. Will the page be edited to contain exculpatory evidence or is to too much of a political hot potato? Seems like with the new evidentiary hearing in May that the page should reflect wrongful conviction beliefs. Wikinovice1 (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I did another attempt: two lines in the Imprisonment subsection, citing the (more mainstream) Washington Post article in addition to the (more detailed) Sekptic magazine article. I hope that being brief and citing a Washington Post article address the criticisms about previous attempts. Aerkem (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That edit is okay, I suppose since it briefly puts the repressed memory stuff into the context of requesting a new trial. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I am happy that you find the edit okay, although I am a bit surprised at your reason. You seem to say that the case can be viewed only through the judicial lens. Justice and crime are related, but not identical topics though, and I do not see why the psychological point of view should be subordinate to the judicial point of view. As it stands, this article is heavily biaised towards the judicial point of view, to the point of mentioning procedural trivia that seem out of place in a biography. I wonder if you would give the same deference to a foreign judicial system. Aerkem (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't state that I'm happy with the edit. Just not as opposed. I stated what I stated based on WP:Due weight and the aforementioned BLP noticeboard discussion about this. We can take the matter to that noticeboard again, but I'd rather not. Also, since this page is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: As an anon observer of this page, and a reader of Pendergrast's book, I find your deletions unhelpful and your justifications suspicious. You appear to me to be an officious type who smuggles in his biases under the guise of obeying rules and regulations. In my opinion it is IMMORAL to create a biography that willfully omits materials that might vindicate him, no matter how unconvincing those materials may be. The WP:Due weight rule does not say no mention of the minority point of view can be allowed. There is not a single reference to Pendergrast's work. According to the page as it stands, the reader would never know a comprehensive argument for Sandusky's innocence had ever been made. This, again, is IMMORAL. This is a man's life, and his guilt and possible innocence should be fairly weighed in a public document claiming authority of an encylopedia. As for @Zareth's claim that "The subject was obviously chosen for his high-profile status (sells more books that way)" the Pendergrast explains that publishing the book was almost impossible. Nobody wanted to touch it. So, not obvious at all. When a notable lifelong contributor to the literature debunking recovered memories writes a book about recovered memory therapy abuse in a high profile case, a book with a blurb from the matriarch of psychological establishment's criticism of recovered memory, Elizabeth Loftus, it warrants a brief mention I'm sorry to inform you. @ValarianB writes that Pendergrast's book received "A lone mention in Skeptic Magazine along with a lot of primary source links to the book. That is pretty much textbook promotional." The reason Pendergrast's book on Sandusky was extensively analyzed in Skeptic magazine was because they knew nobody was going to read it. It's not "textbook" promotion, but the last opportunity for Pendergrast's arguments to see the light of day. Effectively half of the book's argument has been made available in the Skeptic article, highly unusual for a book review I'm sure you will agree. Not "textbook" at all. To summarize, I find all the reasons offered to keep Pendergrast's book out of the Sandusky article highly biased to the point of mental retardation. I'm going to leave you now to read books (not online articles) and write books (not online articles). Enjoy your REEEE while it lasts. (CC: @Aerkem) 113.11.226.208 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not just an "anon observer of this page." Your proper WP:Indenting and use of the WP:Ping give you away on that. And as for Zaereth, since you messed up pinging him, I've pinged him for you. As for the rest, I'm not going to debate you on any of it. I know this site's rules and I stand by what I stated. Your faulty opinion of me matters not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It is definitely time to push for an innocence section. How is it that Allan Myer's statement that he gave to Joe Amendola's investigator not on the Wikipedia anywhere? The emails from Jonelle Eschbach essentially stating they made up the allegations. Allan Myers's letter to the editor. Certainly John Ziegler's With the Benefit of Hindsight is on par with Most Hated Man in America. But the evidence that has come out in the last 11 years shows that Jerry Sandusky is very clearly innocent. Graham Spanier's book was a little lacking. But he sure did a great job demolishing the Freeh report. https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/10/a-shower-of-lies.html Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Jim Clemente's report

"There is no other way to say it: on the most critical aspects of the Sandusky investigation, the SIC report is a failure. It does a tremendous disservice to Penn State, Joe Paterno, and the victims of Jerry Sandusky.” -jim clemente

while mostly agreeing with freeh report, he disagrees with the conclusion and its approach to combating pedophilia. Why is it not even mentioned in the article/entry on this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuadgibbs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

why is crack locked??

the crack and meth pages are controversial????

O_o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.187.27 (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"at his age, effectively a life sentence"

at his age, effectively a life sentence

This should be removed from the lede. It serves no encyclopedic function whatsoever. --2A0A:A541:658D:0:3D2A:FAE6:FAF2:55F7 (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 13:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Glaring Typo in "Early Life and Family," Section

There is an obvious typo in the "Early Life and Family," section near the middle of paragraph 2. The paragraph & error in question read as follows:

"At home, Jerry Sandusky adopted his own personal code.. He also vowed to not be disrespectful to his teachers and **swear** to himself that he would tell the truth if he was caught breaking any rules" (emphasis added: **).

"Swear" is not the right word; it should say "swore" instead.

Here, the word "swear,".. (1) is the incorrect verb tense, (2) disagrees with the preceding verb in the same clause ("he vowed" vs. "he swear"), and (3) is the wrong conjugation of "to swear" when speaking in third-person past-tense

Can someone with sufficient edit privileges please fix this? PodbertMippy (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

PodbertMippy, thank you for pointing this out. I undertook a review of the original edit and found it was added with the grammar error, however there was a reliable source provided (his biography) and I was unable to view the book online to verify the citation. I have assumed good faith on the part of the original editor and corrected the grammar as you suggested. Thanks again, happy editing! Elizium23 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Surely the word here takes its tense from "He vowed to..." which means that "swear" should be used as when he vowed the action was in the future, as in "he would swear"? Britmax (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Factual innocence of Sandusky

I don't mean to raise a debate about this topic, people who've read the entirety of the first trial transcript and know surrounding events wouldn't question this.

(A few examples: that jurors said a reason they voted JS is guilty was because JS didn't take the stand; JS didn't take the stand because lawyer Amendola had received information from the prosecution making him think that Matt S was accusing his adopted dad, and would be brought in to testify in rebuttal; finally, Matt S, at that time, had actually said to police only that he actually did *not* have any recollection of oral or anal sex etc (specific quote "Asked whether he recalled engaging in oral sex or being raped by the former Penn State coach, he told police "at this point I don't recall that.") --- but rather that was in therapy and his therapist was predicting that in the future he *soon would* start having such recollections. Or, second example: victim 6, JS was convicted of grooming for future abuse, and who said, he hadn't thought of intimate showers with an older father figure as abusive until he learned of the *other* accusers. Or, v1 whose testimony exactly matched JS about kissing on the lower stomach, who only agreed to accuse JS of oral sex on behalf of others, on learning that v4 had accused him. While lawyer Andreozzi had, very ethically, tape-recorded cops lying to v4 and saying, even if v4 did manage to keep his face clear during wrestling with JS, oral sex happened with *other* kids. Or, another example, the janitor and police putting together conversations and events over many years to prove Calhoun had witnessed a sexual act when Calhoun had denied it (tape recording transcribed here ) --during the crucial evening described by the other janitors mentioned sexual acts and war injuries in Korea. Or McQueary saying he didn't see it but he knew had witnessed a tall adult and 10 year old child standing together quietly having sex. In short, what the jury heard was the end-result of a long game of iterated whispers under a sustained and very ethical and well-intentioned police investigation and prosecution).

A crucial issue is that the Jury system is considered the best and fairest system, and the case was presented in a very fair, balanced way by the police and the prosecutors. The appeals have failed because everyone was scrupulously fair and careful. All of A. Fisher, M. Sandusky, and A. Myers have said enough to suggest that they would recant if there were a way to do so without giving back the settlement money.

Others have mentioned needing to give the police the testiony they needed, because of being under pressure and being charged with other things, wanting to cooperate.

When police are allowed to lie to suspects and witnesses during an inveestigation, one thing is that this can have unintended consequences. Yes, telling a likely sexual abuse victim that others have already spoken out, could give a shy guy the courage to admit that he too was abused as a child in the same way. But, the difficulty is that the lie also creates a motivation --- if police have convinced someone that there is a guilty bad guy, and all we need is someone to say what will convict them in court, it wouldn't be unethcial to lie.

When the preponderance of evidence is huge, there is a motivation to think, this guy was guilty, all I need to do is say he did it to me, and even if he didn't that doesn't matter, because we are going to be putting away a monster who abused other guys too shy to admit it.

Here in the U.K. Carl Beech was eventually understood not to have been descrbing real events.

The situation here is different. It is more like -- to fabricate an example "You went swimming with the guy dozens of times, his hands would have been all over you. Are you saying his hands *never once* touched your swimsuit?" "I'm not saying that." Many such police interviews are on the record, like the one where the recorded police interview of Matt Sandusky was given to the press. Where the interviewer describes JS putting MS to bed at night, saying "And his hand would go alongside your genital [sic]" and MS answers "yes."

To determine factual guilt or factual innocence...well, for factual guilt, something like a CCTV recording of the abuse taking place would settle it. Or, even *one* witness whose story started out describing abuse, rather than whose story drifted over many years, into a territory where a financial settlement was acquired, and just enough was said for that, and the circumstantial evidence just gets added.

The original judge Cleland gave some jury instructions saying, if you woke up and saw footprints in the snow, that would be good circumstantial evidence that a deer had been in your garden.

I think that the judge was competent and this bears thinking about. If you saw the snow just disrupted, like a Rorshach test, it wouldn't be right to let someone point out features in the snow: "that's where his hand moved when he was hitting him, that's where he fell the first time, that's where he fell the second time, that's where some rabbits ran through...."

I the JS case...when the case was so prominent, when there were so many investigators, so many witnesses (600 children from second mile interviewed, of whom a few made accusations eventually, a 1-800 tip line etc etc), there is a huge preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

It is very easy for people who've read a few press reports to get angry and upset and say, this guy deserved his punishment. But, when you follow any one piece of evidence, and try to understand it in context, the context actually contradicts totally the interpretation that is being used in evidence.

In stories of things that happened 10 or 20 years ago, it is just so easy for two stories that could have happened a year apart to get merged into something that happened one particular day. After Calhoun said he'd seen sexual abuse, not long afterwards, the same night, JS's car was in the parking lot with a child in the car. And the same night, he had been walking hand-in-hand with a child in the gymnasium hallway. The same night.

Or McQueary's account -- now that the dates are known, the timeline of the events was not what he said/ thought at all.

Witness statements from long ago do have to be allowed, and people do much later need to be able to level accusations of sexual abuse. However, the vagueness that results from distant recollections, combined with the massive amount of publicity and evidence collected, mean that the phenomenon of a jury trial where a few pieces of evidence are examined, and the jury is encouraged to consider circumstantial evidence, requires a jury with a really good understanding of context.

The main example of how the jury didn't understand context was in how A. Fisher's testimony resulted from a number of grand jury hearings over the years. How the story was developed over time, from one which the first grand jury rejected to one which the second grand jury eventually reluctantly accepted. But it was presented to the jury as a description of just moments in time, when abuse was taking place.

The jury didn't understand that both JS and AF had described actual kissing of the lower stomach -- as weird as that is -- taking place quite often around bedtime. Not *specifically* the lower stomach, but, the point is, including lots of places, and *not particularly excluding* the lower stomach, including that fake farting type of thing which people usually do to babies. Babies that are lucky enough to have a father.

Well, anyway, the issue is (and this is not the place to debate this) that a factually innocent person was convicted, but not because of anyone's wrong-doing. The prosecution (particularly McGettigan) went to very very extreme lengths to be fair. Even making the accusations in a sort-of almost ironic way, saying that the second mile Charity was a conveyor belt for sex abuse.

I guess there is no way for Wikipedia to have a list of factually innocent people who have been convicted of crimes and not yet cleared. Partly because, the accpeted way of determiing factual innocence is a jury trial. And I actually know of no better way.

It is not with any particular authority that I say JS is factually innocent. Rather, I am saying, he just is, as is clear to anyone who reads all the evidence.

It isn't something that can be proven in any particular way. Createangelos (talk) 17:09, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request

In the third paragraph under Verdict and sentencing, please change “virtually assuring he will die in prison” to “effectively a life sentence” as it provides certainty in an uncertain situation, thus being WP:SYNTH. It also serves no encyclopediac function.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:84D2:B618:1BD7:990 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I've just taken the whole thing out. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

EDIT REQUEST: Under the subtitle “Trial”, third paragraph (victim 4), please change “unwanted oral and anal sex” to “forced…”. These children did not “want“ the abuse. Thanks 2001:569:F951:5700:9CB8:F9BA:55F:9FD5 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure what the issue is - the children did not "want" the abuse, therefore it was "unwanted". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand the edit request. An eventual allegation of a witness of repeated forced anal/oral sex is something which the witness had no way to prevent repeating over and over again despite attemtping not to attend anymore. A similar allegation was Victim 1 being collected in his own home in a car, and pulled out of class at school repeatedly against his will (although the defense unsuccessfully claimed he was never pulled out of class even once), and another victim was repeatedly held prisoner in a basement while screaming and trying to escape. Unwanted only implies the witness would have tolerated it but would have been able to prevent attending while repeated forced intercourse is more consistent with prosecutor McGettigan's careful characterisation of the Second Mile charity having been set up as a conveyor belt for abuse. However I also understand that the request (while valid) is not hugely important as no-one should need to think closely about any particular witness statement. Createangelos (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ScottishFinnishRadish, I just noticed the change and wondered about it. I haven't followed this issue, so if it's discussed above, please forgive me. Is there evidence of "force"? That implies physical violence, rather than grooming, manipulation, or inducements of a young and naive child. Without evidence of physical violence, "forced" is the wrong word and "unwanted" or "improper" would be better words. What is legally defined as "rape" takes many forms, from clear physical force and violence to unwanted acts that occur without strong physical resistance from the fearful or petrified victim. It's still "unwanted" abuse and rape, even when not accompanied by physical, overpowering, force. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Over time, Sandusky’s advances became more forceful and sexual, including wrestling the boy to the ground and forcing him to perform oral sex, he testified. I think that covers it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, sorry, forgot the ping. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that certainly covers it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrongful Conviction Beliefs

Jerry Sandusky has a new appeal hearing May 25, 2023. This page should be updated to reflect wrongful conviction beliefs in my humble opinion. In looking at proposed edits here, there seems to be a lot of misinformation. I am new to Wiki and don't know how to edit. The page is locked anyhow. I did prepare some things that should be included.

In the wake of the publication of books and other media asserting the innocence of Jerry Sandusky such as Mark Pendergrast’s “The Most Hated Man in America,” Malcolm Gladwell’s chapter on the case in “Talking to Strangers,” and John Ziegler’s podcast, “With the Benefit of Hindsight,” many people now believe Jerry Sandusky was wrongfully convicted in a moral panic rush to judgement.   This topic has been further developed in former Penn State President Graham Spanier’s book “In The Lion’s Den: The Penn State Scandal and a Rush to Judgement”

The narrative that Jerry Sandusky is innocent is based on many factors.  Most people are familiar with assertions by government prosecutors that Penn State assistant Coach Mike McQueary witnessed Jerry Sandusky engaged in a sexual act with a 10 year old boy.  Prosecutors  illegally leaked the Grand Jury prouncement  to Patriot News cub reporter Sarah Ganim who published the unfounded salacious allegations setting off a media firestorm leading to Penn State offering payments to anyone who would make a claim against Jerry Sandusky.  In the November 5, 2011 Harrisburg Patriot News story, Ms. Ganim wrote: “On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with a boy about 10 years old.   The graduate assistant immediately left the locker room and told his father what he’d seen, noting that both the boy and Sandusky had turned and seen him.  The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Jo Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curly.”  

The ”Grand Jury Prouncement” and Sarah Ganim’s reporting has now been completely discredited.  The boy in the shower, was in fact 14 year old Allan Myers who at the time gave testimony that stating “the grand jury report says Coach McQuery said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity.  This is not the truth and McQuery is not telling the truth.  Nothing occurred that night in the shower.” 

Allan Myers also penned a tribute/letter to the editor professing Jerry Sandusky’s innocence published in the Center Daily Times.   allanmyerslettertoeditor.pdf (framingpaterno.com)

Mike McQuery also stated that the grand jury report was a fabrication in emails stating “I feel my words were slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment.” http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/10/correcting-record-part-1-mcquearys-2001.html#more

Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach emailed Mike McQuery back stating “I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect, and it is hard not to respond. But you can’t.”

Testimony given by Mike McQueary casts doubt on the February 9, 2001 date of the event.  This date varies by one year from the state stated by Sarah Ganim in her original story.  Many including Jerry Sandusky and Allan Myers believe the date was December 29^th 2000.

Settlement documents between Penn State and the alleged victims have been leaked casting further doubt as to any validity to any claim as those do not match court testimony. The veracity of the claims are also questionable as the attorney for several of the victims has been recorded in a sting operation by Second Mile participant AJ Dillon in which a fake claim is made and Mr. Shubin changes the claim to put the crime on the Penn State campus ostensibly to facilitate a potential payout.  Relevant audio is linked here:

Jerry Sandusky continues to maintain his innocence.  Frustrated with the slow pace of his appeals he recently drafted his own appeal based on accusations made in Sara Ganim’s recent podcast “The Mayor of Maple Avenue.  

Citations.

The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment Paperback – October 28, 2017

by Mark Pendergrast

·        Publisher ‏ : Sunbury Press, Inc. (October 28, 2017)

·        Language ‏ : English

·        Paperback ‏ : 400 pages

·        ISBN-10 ‏ : 162006765X

·        ISBN-13 ‏ : 978-1620067659

Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know Paperback – September 28, 2021

by Malcolm Gladwell

·        Publisher ‏ : Back Bay Books (September 28, 2021)

·        Language ‏ : English

·        Paperback ‏ : 416 pages

·        ISBN-10 ‏ : 0316299227

·        ISBN-13 ‏ : 978-0316299220

It is Part II “Case study: The boy in the shower

WTBOH: With the Benefit of Hindsight... on Apple Podcasts

In the Lions' Den: The Penn State Scandal and a Rush to Judgment Hardcover – September 6, 2022

by Graham Spanier

·        ASIN ‏ : B09XRPL7P8

·        Publisher ‏ : Gryphon/Eagle Press (September 6, 2022)

·        Language ‏ : English

·        Hardcover ‏ : 512 pages

·        ISBN-13 ‏ : 979-8985699494

AJ Dillon Tapes:

With the Benefit of Hindsight...: Episode Fourteen: Secret Agent Man on Apple Podcasts

Patriot News Nov. 5. Penn Live is Patriot News

https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/11/readers_digest_indictment.html

Discussion of Settlement Docs:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-twelve-part-i-the-settlements/id1562078872?i=1000524514855

New appeals June 2022 filed by Jerry on his own.

SearchWarrant on Twitter: "#BREAKING: First of Two Filings submitted today in the #PennState #Sandusky case (First Filing is 6 Pages) https://t.co/NCrC6s8QIn" / Twitter

SearchWarrant on Twitter: "#BREAKING: First of Two Filings submitted today in the #PennState #Sandusky case (First Filing is 6 Pages) https://t.co/NCrC6s8QIn" / Twitter

Summary of the latest appeal with hearing scheduled for May 25, 2023

https://ralphcipriano.substack.com/p/expert-witness-in-penn-state-case

Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I did think a lot about your notion of having a separate section of the article about wrongful conviction beliefs....that sounds sort-of weak in some ways. One thing I was thinking is, virtually all the kids described strangely intimate -- but not sexual -- types of affection like kissing the lower stomach when putting a kid to bed at night, or hugging children regardless of whether they are in a shower or not, or having his hand on their knee while driving. These are abundant and Sandusky readily admitted doing all these things in repeated reports, interviews and witness statements. And all the children (virtually) reported that there was no sexual contact, in any of their early poice interviews.

Yet somehow, the press decided from the beginning to call the witnesses 'victims' -- this was because of the witnessed act of abuse in the Grand Jury presentment, which seemed like this decides the case prima-facie -- even though the jury later decided it didn't happen.

The great consistency of stories of Sandusky paying for things for Second Mile children, being intimate in tthe ways I mentioned above, described what for many people was the MO of a paedophile. Many pepole (e.g. the lawyer Shubin talking to Dillen) say that their only actual evidence is the argument, why would someone devote their whole life to being that kind if there weren't a motive like a sexual motive somewhere.

Yet, the stories of sexual abuse are completely different one from the other. They change from one retelling to the next, are completely different from one 'victim' to the next, they are retracted, re-invoked, etc etc.

The article could reflect that reality better, if there were a way to do that without lengthening it. But instead to be concise it compresses things, for instance, the sentence in the article "The boy's parents reported the incident to police in 2009" refers to AF and the way that he eventually arrived at a story of any type of sexual incident is described in great detail by the expert Moulton report, and also in AF's book "silent no more." That it was over the sitting of two grand juries that AF consented to allow his therapist to read evidence into the first grand jury record, without making any accusation of his own. Pendergrast's book describes eventually AF accusing Sandusky while sobbing in court. His Mom had wanted a financial settlement. And Pendergrast says the sobbing was misunderstood by the jury, as if he was sobbing because he had been abused.

For Wikipedia to refer to "the incident" is good, it does clarify that the report of abuse is somehow less significant than the long months it took to produce it. I can't think how to improve that...Createangelos (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I somehow missed a notification on this. I am a rookie at this and can't really think of a way to shorten the whole Wikipedia page. I think what I wrote has to be somewhat soft since there is a conviction. But more and more are accepting the wrongful conviction position. Graham Spanier mentioned in a CSPAN book signing event that Penn State Lawyers relooked at the case and after listing to With the Benefit of Hindsight, have privately cleared him of any wrongdoing. The topic is too toxic for them to make a public statement. You are certainly well versed. I hear you on the motivation. But if he truly walked the walk of his religion, then that just makes this story so much sadder since there are so few who do. It is like Judas turning on Jesus. Allan Myers, V2, the boy in the shower was Jerry's biggest defender until with no job, a wife and a new baby, he took the $ 7 million dollars to shut his mouth. In my humble opinion somebody just needs to take a stand on this start somewhere and moving the innocence discussion to the formal Wikipeadia page is a good place to start. Did you listen at all to the interview with the reporter who fact checked everything in the Pendegrass book "Most Hated Man in America." The this journalist is broken by his profession not willing to tell the truth in this story. Thank you for your response. It means a lot! Wikinovice1 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the link to the interview with the Insider reporter who spent over a year fact checking everything in "Most Hated Man in America." He and a came out team innocent. If you listen, he is just broken by his industry in that journalists can't admit they got this story very wrong and his publisher will not let his story see the light of day. Someone has to start telling the truth and I think Wikipedia is as good as any to just have a "Wrongful Conviction belief" section. I would bet the reporter, Keenan Trotter, would provide could solid documentation to that section. Again, listen to his anguish to understand why I say that. The Death Of Journalism: Episode Fifty Eight: All In On Iowa on Apple Podcasts

It is morally wrong to ignore the innocence belief when there is so much evidence of innocent people being prosecutred daily in our nation. Why can's society even discuss the possibility in this case. It is time to take this to the formal wiki page on Jerrry Sandusky and the Penn State Scandal page. https://innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ Wikinovice1 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the Wikipedia page for Dr. Spanier. I see there is a section on his book acknowledging the Freeh report was a sham and then this: "Edward Rendell, former Pennsylvania governor, wrote a testimonial for Spanier's account, saying “It is undeniable that this book raises real questions about our justice system.” Yes, Dr. Spanier had his passport taken away, judges ignored the most basic constitutional protections that Americans cannot be tried if a law did not exist at the time to put an innocent man in prison. This case may be the greatest case of judicial misconduct and moral panic of our lives and it is time for the Sandusky page to at least acknowledge wrongful conviction beliefs when the evidence for those beliefs is everywhere. Wikinovice1 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Good short summary of the innocence position

Certainly John Ziegler's With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast is hands down the best summary of innocence and overwhelmingly proves that Jerry Sandusky is very clearly innocent, but it is about 70 hours long. Certainly AJ Dillon's three year sting of Andrew Shubin and the therapist deserves a selection segment somewhere. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-fourteen-secret-agent-man/id1562078872?i=1000526052032

But for a short readable summary of the innocence position, this is quite good. https://www.bigtrial.net/2021/11/jerry-sandusky-deserves-new-trial.html Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Franco Harris

Franco Harris frequently spoke out regarding Mike McQueary and the grand jury pronouncement. Just before death he was working on documenting his conversation so it would not be lost when he died. Fortunately, he did release his third segment just before death and it is the most important of the three segments. For posterity, I am linking to that here so that there is a record of those who have worked to right this outrage which may be the greatest prosecutorial injustice since Salem. https://www.uponfurtherreviewpsu.com/

Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

AJ Dillon Sting

One of the most remarkable events in this fascinating case is the story of AJ Dillon. AJ is a Second Mile kid who attended the trial and knew that Jerry was innocent and set about trying to expose the hoax. For three years he pretends to be a Jerry Sandusky victim. He records attorney Andrew Shubin changing his story to put abuse on the Penn State campus. AJ also records his therapy sessions for three years showing how the Sandusky case worked. Ie no vetting of any claim for being in any way real. Remarkably, AJ also has a discussion with Ira Lubert of Penn State who also on tape admits they just paid money again with no vetting. These tapes are part of Jerry Sandusky's latest appeal and therefore they too should be part of the permanent record in this case. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-fourteen-secret-agent-man/id1562078872?i=1000526052032 Wikinovice1 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Graham Spanier Wikipedia Page

This is for discussion of when a "Belief in Wrongful Conviction" section will be added to the Jerry Sandusky and Penn State Sex Abuse wikipedia pages.

The Graham Spanier Wikipedia page now mentions that the accusers have been discredited.

Graham Spanier - Wikipedia

"A review of the book in Library Journal states that Spanier's memoir “... refutes the highly disputed report prepared by former FBI director Louis Freeh…. Using evidence obtained through freedom of information laws and other sources, the author documents how many of his accusers have since been discredited and makes a convincing case of his innocence.”

It also mentions how this case exposes issues in our justice system.

Edward Rendell, former Pennsylvania governor, wrote a testimonial for Spanier's account, saying “It is undeniable that this book raises real questions about our justice system.”

We know our justice system is not infallible. One need only to look at the Innocence Project and this listing would only be the tip of the iceberg: Cases - Innocence Project

So what does it say about society that we know Jerry Sandusky is innocent, yet society will not even permit a discussion of innocence for a man who dedicated his life to helping others? We view turning a blind eye to sex abuse as being an unpardonable sin. But what about turning a blind eye to issues in our justice system that perpetuate innocent people being convicted?

When will it be OK to tell the truth in this case? When Jerry is dead? If that is the case, I fear for our nation.

Editors, what would it take to get a belief in wrongful conviction section added to the main article?

Wikinovice1 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, it might help if there were a cosensus about what went wrong. If it's just a one-off because of the unusual publicity of the case, it is sad, but on the other hand, if this just happens to be the only case we know about among many uninvestigated, there could be a responsibility not only to understand the failings in this one case, but to try to understand if there might be other less-publicized cases in vast numbers of innocent guys languishing in prison or having lost their job or position in a church or gym because of misunderstood kindness. On the other side of things, just focussing on this case in particular, there have been films about the case (more than one), it was discussed by John Stewart on the Daily Show early on. There is Sandusky's unusual dedication to philanthropy (the Second Miile charity), his connection to the football program, the firing of a university president, the way the state Attorney General K. Kane was drawn into the debate (wasn't she actually imprisoned?) . So one worry is, this is just a tiny case if there are many less publicized miscarriages of justice.. but there is the opposite interpretation that this is a huge case deserving a bigger lesson or conclusion about universities or chldren or compassion or media, that would need to be drawn than just some people doubt the evidence. It is just a confusing tragedy maybe. Createangelos (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been many cases. McMartin, Wenatchee Washington etc. Fortunately in those justice prevailed but as in Wenatchee, entire families were forced to flee to Canada because of the insanity of police and prosecutors believing a mentally ill girl who would drive through town with her police officer father pointing out random people on the street that she would say abused her. But I would say the Sandusky case launched the false accusation cottage industry. Jimmy Savile, Trevor Bauer. I will get some more. There was one in Texas recently. Wikinovice1 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am going to paste a few recent cases in. Brian Banks of course is a good example of a good life ruined:

https://www.hawaiiinnocenceproject.org/brian-banks

Outcry Season 1: Watch Episodes Online | SHOWTIME

A five-part documentary series examining the gripping story of high school football star Greg Kelley and a quest for truth and justice. Few people experience the momentum that Kelley had going into his senior year in Leander, Texas. That all changed when he was convicted of sexual assault of a four-year-old boy, and sentenced to 25 years in prison with no possibility for parole. But a groundswell of support emerged for Kelley, calling into question the investigation, the prosecution's tactics and ultimately, the validity of the conviction.

Former Baltimore high school wrestling coach found not guilty in child sex abuse case - CBS Baltimore (cbsnews.com)

BALTIMORE -- Neil Adleberg, a former prominent wrestling coach, has been found not guilty on all charges related to accusations he assaulted a former wrestler he took under his wing in 2013 and 2014.

The verdict arrived after closing arguments were heard on Thursday.

Adleberg, 75, was accused of child sexual abuse dating back to 2013 and 2014 when he was assisting with the Mount Saint Joseph High School wrestling team. His alleged victim was 17 years old at the time.

Basically it is an epidemic and I think the Sandusky case would wake people up. How to Create a Sex Scandal: The Story Behind the Docuseries (texasmonthly.com) Wikinovice1 (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph/Shubin

Hi, I had written on MonMothma's user page and decided to bring my comments here. For a long time the last paragraph of 'imprisonment' mentioned whatever was the most recent appeal action and why it had been denied. Admittedly my attempt to update it led to a long sentence by Barden (who was the forensic psych witness for the most recent failed appeal at Centre County) about the supreme court, various precedents, and whether expert witnesses should have been therapists or scientists. (Amendola had wanted a forensic Psych for the first trial but Cleland denied any continuance I think in the face of escalating publicity) and there was no time. Barden claimed the trial had been a 'death march to conviction' but it was turning into a circus and there could be valid reasons to try on existing evidence.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here, the current last paragraph sort-of blames Shubin...and one must remember that as a civil lawyer his responsibility is towards his clients. Maybe a section would be useful in the article about what were the reasons for conviction. I would say, the jury was just out to lunch. But anyway, one thing was that the police interrogators were trained in drug enforcement, they didn't realize that the first witness statement is the most reliable, and pushed for witnesses to 'spill the beans.' The crucial changes in witness statements were v1 with encouragement from his therapisst Gillum,and v4 with encouragement from Leiter.

Both changes of tetimony are very clearly and accurately documented. The book "Silent no more" with authors listed as v1, his mom and therapist details the change of testimony -- which from the outside we see as starting from JS putting his mouth on the kids' stomach on rare occasions during bedtime play, and developing as it is undersstood that there had been layers of forgotten abuse the therapist had needed to unearth. Also the Moulton report, commissioned shortly after the trial, includes detailed evidence about the testimony of v1 changing over the course of several grand jury hearings. And for v4, his lawyer (Ben Andreozzi) very ethically made sure the police interview where v4 changed his mind was recorded, when the police (falsely) said that there already was evidence from many many kids that wrestling with js led to oral abuse. The tape recording was played for the jury.

An attentive jury would have acquitted. They didn't, the same evidence is still there. Is it just a tragedy when a jury gets it wrong despite a trial being mainly fair?

About Shubin, when the young investigator (AJ Dillen) went to him to trap him, he actually said he had been absued by JS but not at Penn State. Shubin's heart may have broken for the kid if he believed it, instead of asking for details he gave the kid a script about abuse at Penn State to help the kid collect his possible settlement. That is crminal maybe but not unethical if Shubin really believed JS was guilty. When the kid asked Shubin, how do you know JS is guilty, Shubin acted like the question had never arisen in his mind, saying well how else would you explain why someone would dedicate their life to young people.

The prosecution all along ring-fenced shubin away from any trial testimony. Prosecution was careful, ethical and rigorous. A forensic psych should have just told the jury that for cases like this you have to go with the first witness statements, not ones that develop over years of pressure and millions of dollars of settlements being collected.

So I think it was slightly wrong to delete the paragrpah which I had written just quoting Barden....

Maybe there could as I say be a section listing factors that led to the conviction. To have a 'bad guy' lawyer to blame is satisfying but not the actual main reason.Createangelos (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would love to hear a member of the jury respond to all that has come out post conviction. I don't totally blame them since prosecutors openly lied in court as well as the narrative told by the media was to taint the jury pool. But they have to be upset at how they were used. This was a moral panic that we all took part in. I think we think we would not have another Salem Witch Trial psychosis. This case shows that we can and did. Wikinovice1 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue with the prosecutors is hard, McGettigan made his summing-up speech saying, when he has prosecuted murderers, and they are found guilty, he always feels as though (by disbelieving their protestations of innocence) he is carrying their souls in his pocket. But this time, he feels that he is carrying in his pocket the souls of the `victims.' I vaguely remember, he said, usually prosecutors will show a slide of a victim on the screen, but i want you to see this, and showed Sandusky on the screen. In the section where Sandusky had supposedly was seen having relations with a small child, the prosecution did a mockup, and included a 3 legged stool for the model of the child to stand on so that the act could be physically possible. (The jury ruled 'innocent' on that, the only one charge that had supposedly been contemporaneously witnessed rather than 'recovered'). McGettigan referred to the entire Second Mile charity as a 'conveyor belt for abuse,' and he talked about how out of all those kids, these few (now adult) kids who testified are going to be accused of being just greedy. McGettigan said, the victim McQueary saw in the shower is 'known only to God.' Speaking to witnesses, he acted faux-defensive and said, "but did I *personally* twist your arm? Did I *personally* force you to say what you are saying?" By being gentle, fair and balanced, and trustworthy, McGettigan may have inadvertently led the jury to trust the prosecution *case*. Somehow, the preceding months when it was deemed cruel and heartless to refer to the witnesses as anything but 'victims,' it did seem like the world had made up its mind. Maybe this was started by the Paterno children, who had known Sandusky since their childhood and referred to praying for the 'victims.' It seemed then they had witnessed years and years of abuse....but no....they all eventually said they had not happened to ever witness anything that should make it clear, or even suggest, that there were victims.... they made a PR decision on behalf of their dad Joe to clarify that they understand that victims don't lie, and the family would not support a suspected child abuser. Createangelos (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Createangelos and Wikinovice1, I will set aside my thoughts on the comments above and simply suggest that you please review WP:FORUM and WP:FRINGE. Thank you. MonMothma (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you MonMothma. I did read those and I do appreciate them as we certainly need to be careful and respect the reputation of Wikipedia. I like that Wikepedia does try to vet. For example, some neighbors today were promoting a guy on Joe Rogan and a quick look at Wikepedia gave me all I needed to know to call BS. But may I also offer up a good place to review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project

They estimate that between 1 and 10% of people in prison are innocent. Turning a blind eye to a clearly wrongful conviction is morally wrong. Best regards and again, I hear and respect what you are saying above. Wikinovice1 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

New wave of journalistic interest in innocence position

Frank Parlato of the "Frank Report" has been doing on ongoing series of articles detailing Jerry Sandusky's innocence. They hit hard on the accusers, prosecutors, etc. in the case. For purposes of maintaining a knowledge base for when the "Belief in Innocence" section is added, I will list them here. They are ongoing so the list will be growing. The first article is not chronological. It is being listed first since it outlines why Frank Parlato will not give up the fight and his call for other journalists to stand up for truth and justice.

"The Plan to Expose the False Conviction of Jerry Sandusky"

https://frankreport.com/2024/01/15/the-plan-to-expose-the-false-conviction-of-jerry-sandusky/

"Did Jerry Sandusky Get a Fair Trial? – The Answer Is ‘No’"

https://frankreport.com/2023/12/25/did-jerry-sandusky-get-a-fair-trial-the-answer-is-no/

"The Unheard Side of the Sandusky Story: Did Aaron Fisher Lie?"

https://frankreport.com/2024/01/05/the-unheard-side-of-the-sandusky-story-did-aaron-fisher-lie/

"Did Aaron Fisher Mislead Authorities in Sandusky Case? Looks Like He Did!"

https://frankreport.com/2024/01/09/did-aaron-fisher-mislead-authorities-in-sandusky-case-looks-like-he-did/

"From Trailer Park to Millions: Sabastian Paden’s Rise to Wealth Through Testifying in Jerry Sandusky Trial"

https://frankreport.com/2024/01/12/from-trailer-park-to-millions-sabastian-padens-rise-to-wealth-through-testifying-in-jerry-sFrom Trailer Park to Millions: Sabastian Paden’s Rise to Wealth Through Testifying in Jerry Sandusky Trialandusky-trial/

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Parlato_Jr.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez. Wikinovice1 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider one investigative reporter doing work to be a "wave", so it doesn't merit any coverage at this point; he's still a convicted child molester at this time, who chose not to testify at his trial.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Frank is on "Search Warrant" as I type and he just laid out a bunch of writers on the topic I was not familiar with and I thought I followed it pretty closely. Clearly the truth has been surprised in the mainstream media. Keenan Trotter of "Business Insider" discusses how he is broken by his industry that refuses to let the truth see the light of day. Years factchecking "Most Hated Man in America," and it is suppressed. Sad.

  "The Insider, Keenan Trotter on how learning the truth about the Penn State Scandal led to his disillusionment with journalism ending Zig's most recent hope of exposing the truth about Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky."

  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-death-of-journalism/id1650632627?i=1000613178789

  Note: my response to Millowent is really not a substantive comment. But two mainstream journalists did fact check this case and are 100 percent sure Sandusky is innocent. So I think this link is appropriate for the knowledge base on documenting how truth and justice in this case was actively suppressed because historians in the future will want to track how society let this happen. Wikinovice1 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Milowent, you raised a good question and it deserves a full answer. I see a list has been created to address your question. It does not have Malcomb Gladwell and Keenan Trotter, and it acknowledges it is a partial list for now. But as to your question, here you are: https://frankreport.com/2024/01/18/renowned-academics-and-investigators-challenge-jerry-sanduskys-conviction/ Wikinovice1 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Interesting to be sure, but none of this reporting is anywhere near the threshold of reliable mainstream reporting. Michael Jackson was also innocent according to swathes of the Internet. Sandusky was also very possibly abused by his father, but that is another claim without valid sourcing to put in this article. If your goal is to get "jerry is innocent" claims into this wikipedia article, I'm afraid its very likely never going to happen.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  The Micael Jackson analogy is good. Yes, the internet said he was innocent and that is what the courts ruled. Another case of false accusations for money. I don't get why "Most Hated Man in America" does not trump the media for facts now that two reporters spent years fact checking "Most Hated Man in America." The New York Times published a story saying Matt Sandusky tried to commit suicide because of Sandusky. Matt's girlfriend said, no, it was a joint suicide attempt because the Sandusky's don't permit sex outside of marriage especially under their roof. Again, if they seemingly consistently report 100 percent the opposite of the facts, why are they the arbiters of truth in this case? The New York Times should have said Matt tried to kill himself because the Sandusky's don't condone sex outside of marriage. https://www.framingpaterno.com/node/485 The email from the girlfriend is very interesting. Wikinovice1 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pleased that someone is still thinking about this. Here in Britain the main news sources are full of stories about the miscarriages of justice due to the Post office needing to protect their Horizon computer system. It is just so hard to find any analogous focus to collect together diverse sources about Sandusky and there might not be any. Judge Cleland allowed unusual ('excited utterance' hearsay exception) evidence that Calhoun may have been heard stating that he'd seen someone abusing a child and the people who heard this identify who it was, Sandusky who had been seen holding hands with a child in a hallway or sitting with a child in a car. A tape recording of Calhoun in his own words saying he had never seen Sandusky abusing a child and knows he would never do that, was among the discovery evidence, but either not seen in time or discounted based on the notion that it may have been the start of Calhoun's dementia. One man phoned the 1-800 tip line to say yes as a child he'd been picked up and immediately raped while hitchiking by a man in a silver car and from the photo he thinks it was Sandusky. Victim 6 agreed in the same first trial transcript that Sandusky befriended him at his Mom's request (when, it is now known, he had had cancer as a child and no father). They would shower together after workouts and nothing sexual happened, he said, He would for instance be held up with his hair under the cascade, it substantiated the criminal charge of grooming for planned abuse which could have happened in the future thus illegal but hapenned not to happen.Createangelos (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Createangelos and Wikinovice1, back in November, I noticed some discussion here on the talk page about Sandusky's alleged innocence and gently suggested that you each review WP:FORUM and WP:FRINGE. Two months later, the two of you are still pushing this theme here on the talk page. Let me remind you more strongly: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a place to promote fringe theories. MonMothma (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I totally get where you are coming from, and again, I did read the links before to get an understanding of your statements. On Wednesday we will get an update on the Federal appeal. Should that move forward, everything linked will be clearly relevant. I don't know how facts over hearsay could be fringe, but I don't want to argue. So lets see how this long awaited federal appeal plays out and I will not post anything more. Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Daily Mail Coverage of Medical Records

The Daily Mail became the first mainstream news source to release Jerry Sandusky's medical records. These records cast doubt on the accusations against him and give credence to those who believe Sandusky to be an innocent man. This page is about Jerry Sandusky. His medical records are an integral piece of who this man is and accordingly it is past the time to tell a complete picture of who he is and what happened to him. It is time for the Belief in Innocence section to be added to this page. Shocking twist in Jerry Sandusky case as new medical evidence could have proven former Penn State coach's innocence - but was left out of trial because he was too EMBARRASSED | Daily Mail Online Wikinovice1 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

And of course the editors removed this article from the main page because the Daily Mail is a "depreciated news" source. We are living in the age when all legacy news is depreciated. The truth is the truth. These are medical records and are the most fact based piece of evidence in the whole case. But can't have facts in this case. No. We can't have the legacy media take any more hits to their reputation. Granted I get this case will be the final blow for legacy media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinovice1 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

...trying to understand why DailyMail was deprecated...the articles always seem accurate to me once you get past the clickbait headlines. The issue of headlines can matter. The late Terry Crewes' article accuses Ganim's PennLive headline writer of putting out a headlines saying "Former coach Sandusky used his charity to abuse kids." Crewes exaggerates; the Pennlive article itself was balanced and the headline more correctly was "Report: former coach Sandusky used his charity to abuse kids." Crewes' criticism of Ganim if we overlook his exaggeration is on the same basis as Wikipedia's deprecation of DailyMail. A member of the public even who might end up as a potential juror for the trial can glance at a headline saying "Report: former coach Sandusky used his charity to abuse kids" and think it actually does say what Crewes claimed: "Former coach Sandusky used his charity to abuse kids." The word-choice of 'report' by the sub-editor isn't even very redeeming, it could make it seem like the article would describe the conclusion of a balanced investigation rather than a hypothetical prosecution case. What is monstrous is how only after the trial did any coherent analysis start to take place like the actual Moulton report, or Ziegler noticing how in all the testimony no one was ever intimate at the gym, and no-one ever had their clothes off if they were being fostered/adopted/sleeping at home. Prosecutor McGettigan very ethically flagged up for the jury flaws and contradictions in the commonwealth case (maybe you shouldn't trust juries to do irony). What should have been impossible is any legal authority seriously presiding over over such a crappy evidentiary standard and whole circumstantial ball of meaningless innuendo. And it happens all the time in criminal cases.Createangelos (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)