Reexamining the Jerry Sandusky Case

New Insights Challenge the Established Narrative

Was Jerry Sansdusky wrongfully convicted? Frank Parlato finds out, and we will follow his investigation.

By Richard Luthmann

Inadvertently, I may have triggered an avalanche in my coverage of Connecticut scoundrel and abuser Christopher Ambrose:

It began with an article Rich Luthmann wrote for the Frank Report, where he mentioned Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach convicted of sexually abusing boys in 2012.

In a groundbreaking reevaluation of the Jerry Sandusky case, Frank Parlato, the celebrated investigative journalist, delves into the complexities and controversies surrounding the former Penn State football coach's conviction for child sexual abuse:

‘The Sandusky Case is Exactly Opposite to What the Public Believes’: The Case Against Jerry Sandusky Reexamined

Initially, Parlato's Frank Report reiterated the familiar story: Sandusky, convicted in 2012 for abusing ten boys, with allegations leading to the firing of famed coach Joe Paterno.

However, a tip-off from Frederick Crews, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of English at Berkeley, prompted a deeper investigation. Crews, aged 90, directed Parlato to his essay, “A Shower Of Lies: Spanier, Sandusky And The Mess At Penn State,” challenging the public's perception of the case.

This encounter led Parlato into a world where a small but vocal minority, including journalists like John Ziegler, Ralph Cipriano, and former NCIS agent John Snedden, question Sandusky's guilt.

Absent from Happy Valley is any mention of Coach Joe Paterno. The reason is the Jerry Sandusky prosecution and conviction. If the new investigation shows the evidence doesn’t fit, we’re ready to call bullshit.

Ziegler's documentary "Framing Paterno" and the website FramingPaterno.com argue against the media-driven narrative targeting Paterno. Snedden, in Ziegler’s podcast, firmly states, "There was no coverup," and questions the sexual nature of the incident witnessed by Mike McQueary in the Penn State showers.

Author Mark Pendergrast also sides with this perspective in his book, "The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment."

Pendergrast's work on recovered memories, especially in "Victims of Memory" and "The Repressed Memory Epidemic," becomes crucial as the case against Sandusky largely rested on such memories. Allan Myers, initially denying abuse, later, under psychotherapy, claimed otherwise. Similarly, seven of the eight men who testified against Sandusky had 'recovered' their memories of abuse through therapy, often after engaging lawyers.

The settlements from Penn State to the alleged victims range from $1.5 million to $20 million. However, doubts linger about the reliability of these testimonies. For instance, Michal Kajak’s account evolved under memory therapy, and Sabastian Paden, who initially didn't recall abuse, later claimed extreme abuse, receiving the highest settlement.

The case's credibility further wavers with Victim 8, known only through hearsay, and Ryan Rittmeyer, whose unaided memory of abuse stands out. His criminal record, however, raises questions about his reliability. Attorney Andrew Shubin, representing many victims, played a pivotal role in recovering these memories, often resulting in lucrative settlements.

Former Penn State Quarterback and Coach Mike McQueary.

Mike McQueary's changing testimonies add to the ambiguity. His initial claim of witnessing a rape evolved into uncertainty about the nature of the act he observed. McQueary's credibility is further complicated by personal scandals and inconsistencies in his story.

We are going to follow Parlato's investigation. We also intend to add to it, bringing college sports, legal knowledge, and a dash of common sense.

Doubts are good. Resolving them leads to growth and understanding. And there is a shadow of doubt over the Sandusky case. It points to potential flaws in the judicial process and raises questions about the role of media, public opinion, and the psychology of memory in shaping legal outcomes.

We are also entering this new investigation with an open mind. By taking a new, fresh, and hard look at the evidence, we may come to different conclusions. Or, we may confirm the result and further bolster the findings reached by Louis Freeh, the Penn State Trustees, and a Pennsylvania jury, among others. Either way, we invite you along for the adventure.

You can read Parlato’s coverage here:

READ FRANK REPORT’S COVERAGE OF THE SANDUSKY CASE

---

---