John Ziegler Interviews Attorney for Latest Sandusky Victim & Hilarity/Dodging Ensue
Last week there was a news story indicating that yet another victim of Jerry Sandusky had settled his case for big money with Penn State. Ray Blehar emailed me to say that he was quite certain that this particular victim was highly suspect, largely because of the age of the person and some of the details which were given in the story.
Specifically, the victim was listed as being 22 years old and described as having been taken to a "bowl" game by Sandusky. As Ray correctly pointed out, that would have meant that the oldest this person could have been while attending a bowl game was about eight years old. This is because Sandusky never attended a bowl game after he retired after the 1999 season and it has already been well-documented that Victim 4 was his guest for his last two bowl trips.
Both Ray and I immediately knew that the notion that Sandusky would have brought an eight-year-old to a bowl game was absurd on several levels. It also would have been completely outside all the other evidence in this case where all the known victims were between the ages of 11 and 15.
I checked with Dottie Sandusky and, sure enough, not only was she positive that they had never (and would never) have brought such a young boy to a bowl game, but that she and Jerry didn't even have any knowledge of this particular person at all.
While I know there are many who presume that Dottie and Jerry are lying about everything, I have not found that to be the case in my experience and there certainly is a big difference between denying abuse of victims with whom you fully acknowledge having had extensive relationships (as the Sanduskys have done with seven of the eight victims who testified at trial), and claiming that you have never even met someone.
It has long been my belief that at least some of those who Penn State is paying off as victims of Sandusky are not really victims and are, at best, greatly exaggerating the nature of the contact that they had with Sandusky because they know they can translate that into easy money from a university which seems eager to take blame for crimes for which it had no responsibility. I immediately had a great suspicion that this particular victim may fit into this category.
With that in mind, I asked this victim's attorney if I could speak to him on the record about what was in the article. Here is a link to that interview:
What I was left with at the end of a rather frustrating, though humorous, experience was that this victim got paid a lot of money from Penn State despite:
Not testifying at trial even though he would have been only the fifth person to claim any actual "sex" with Sandusky (no explanation given).
Not being able to say which shower he was abused in.
Not being able to say what year he was abused or how old he was at the time (most interestingly, the lawyer makes it clear the claim was after the "McQueary Episode," but he gives some possible ages for his client which make that impossible).
Saying he attended a bowl game without saying the year that happened and without any chance that actually occurred (it is important to point out that I contacted the writer from the Patriot News and he confirmed to me that the attorney told him that Sandusky took his client to a bowl game, though he did admit that he somehow screwed up the victim's age by one year).
Claiming that abuse took place in the Sandusky home without Dottie Sandusky having any idea who this person is.
I also learned that this attorney is rather high on himself (and a big fan of Carl Bernstein). I guess any ambulance chaser might be after they had just pulled off a boondoggle like this one (claiming he couldn't give details because if the "ongoing" criminal case against Sandusky was particularly rich).
To be clear, I am NOT saying I know that this person was not abused by Sandusky, but only that the evidence that has been made public that he was indeed abused is literally laughable. Given the way all of this has gone down, I have no reason to trust anyone in this process that there is any more "proof" than what his lawyer lamely tried to offer in our interview for his oddly "publicity shy" (proof-shy?) client.