Victim 9 Is Now Proven To Have Lied About Joe Paterno, But Hardly Anyone Will Care

A couple of weeks ago, the lawyers for Victim 9 in the Jerry Sandusky case announced that they were not accepting a settlement and were suing Penn State for millions of dollars. The lawsuit provided at least one morsel of “information” which the attorneys had to know the media could not possibly resist and which they also knew would make Penn State’s pocketbook open up even wider than normal.

The Associated Press reported (regurgitated) it this way:

The lawsuit claims Sandusky's former boss, coach Joe Paterno, invited the boy and Sandusky to have lunch with him at Beaver Stadium and tour the stadium, despite the late coach "being alerted years earlier to Sandusky's sexual assault of young boys."

"Each time Sandusky and John Doe D encountered Paterno, Paterno greeted Sandusky, endorsing Sandusky's favored status with Penn State," the lawsuit stated.

Instinctively, having seen first-hand how Sandusky feels about Paterno and knowing the nature of their rocky relationship (which Sandusky tried to clarify at the end of this interesting letter which he sent me last week).


I instantly knew that Victim 9's story was complete balderdash. I was hardly alone in this conclusion as just about anyone following the story (outside of the moronic media) immediately reacted as if they had been told by their unemployed, out-of-shape buddy that he was dating a Victoria’s Secret model.

There was just simply no chance that the story was true.

I immediately called Dottie Sandusky and she was quite sure that I was correct as the story about having lunch with Paterno made no sense to her (even discounting that she is sure Victim 9 is a liar because he laughably testified that he was screaming from her basement for help while she was there). I then emailed Jerry and asked him to formally respond to an article about this which I had sent to him.

As one of the far-too-many-to-overcome “Perfect Storm” elements of this story, communication with Sandusky in a “SuperMax” prison is extremely difficult and makes the days of the Pony Express seem efficient by comparison. Consequently, it took almost two weeks before Jerry finally sent Dottie a written response and she was able to email a scanned version to me.

Here is what he wrote about Victim 9’s allegations regarding Joe Paterno in his lawsuit:

The recent statements of alleged victim #9 on are indicative of the absurdity of accusations made by many. If one read the trial transcripts you would see he said he came to our home every weekend for four years. Now, he tops that with stating I took him to lunch with Joe Paterno. How could (can) anyone believe these stories? The only time I was ever at lunch with Joe Paterno was with a recruit, while coaching. He didn't play football, and I wasn't coaching in those years.

Here, in a PDF file, is Jerry’s statement, in his own handwriting.

Of course, yet another element of this “Perfect Storm” is that I am well aware that very few people will believe Sandusky’s word on anything (even on a subject where he has zero reason to lie and he is clearly on the side of basic logic). I also know that no one in the media will give Sandusky’s strong denial any where near as much credibility as the baseless/nonsensical allegation by Victim 9’s lawyers (who most certainly do have a huge financial incentive to lie here). I find this reality particularly odd because most people seem to have concluded that Sandusky was totally guilty because he was too honest in his Bob Costas interview.

Let’s be clear. Sandusky isn’t just saying that he never had lunch with Victim 9 and Joe Paterno. He is saying he is positive (trust me, Jerry is rarely declarative about anything, thus the Bob Costas interview disaster) that he NEVER had lunch of ANY kind with Joe Paterno after he retired in 1999. Since he never met Victim 9 until 2005, it is therefore impossible for Victim 9 to not be blatantly lying about a dead man for money (and by the way, if Jerry was lying about NEVER having had lunch with Paterno after 1999, that would be pretty easily proven).

So here we have a situation where I am positive Sandusky is telling the obvious truth with no incentive to lie and yet everyone (especially in the media) will instead believe the absurd story of a nameless/faceless person, speaking through his lawyers, who has a huge financial incentive to make stuff up. There have been a lot of maddening realities in this entire saga, but that one ranks right up there at the top of the insane-making heap.

It is also very important to note that the significance of this story goes far beyond whether Joe Paterno ever had lunch with Jerry Sandusky and a major victim (again, it is obvious he did not). I strongly believe that you can unravel a lot of this entire case by simply pulling on this stray thread which came loose because of transparent greed.

I have always suspected that Victim 9 is lying (I am hardly alone here; two reporters who covered the trial have told me they thought he was by far the least credible of the witnesses). He didn’t come forward until after the arrest/media firestorm and until it was obvious that Penn State would be writing virtually blank checks to all of Sandusky's victims. Also, his story is vastly different and far more horrific than any of the other victims in the case (and yet he did not take the physical test which could have proven his allegations). Plus, as I have already mentioned, Dottie Sandusky, whom I consider to be very credible, is sure that he is lying about at least one key aspect of his testimony.

Well now we have Victim 9 caught dead to rights in an obvious lie. One which was clearly concocted to push Penn State’s most vulnerable buttons to get them to pay him even more money than the generous settlement which was already being offered by the school which had absolutely nothing to do with his abuse, even if he is telling the truth.

So if Victim 9, the star victim of the “post arrest” avalanche is a perjurer who has concocted his whole story for money, then what does that say about all of the other “post arrest” victims which the prosecution didn’t put nearly as much faith in and who never even testified?

I believe that the discrediting of Victim 9 wipes away the trustworthiness of any of the victims who came forward after the arrest and shatters the myth perpetrated by the so-called victim’s rights advocates that male abuse victims never lie for money. After all, if the “best” of a bunch of apples is rotten to its core, how could the rest be much better?

If I am right about this logical progression, then that means that only the original victims were credible and just two of them testified to actual sex acts with Sandusky. One of those (Victim 4) did so only after an inadvertent audio recording showed that his own lawyer conspired with investigators to lie to him about what other victims had said to get him to claim a sex act.

That then leaves us with only Aaron Fisher as an even theoretically totally credible victim who testified (after a couple of failed attempts in the grand jury) to an actual sex act with Sandusky. As I have outlined in this video which makes the case that Sandusky was a “chaste pedophile” and was grossly overcharged, there are many other reasons to question Fisher’s story, which I believe may have been coerced out of him by the therapist who co-wrote his book.

Once again, I am not "defending" Sandusky, but only trying to figure our the truth of what really happened here. I wish to one more time make clear that I believe Sandusky had some sort of compulsion which led him to act inappropriately, at best, with boys. I am also NOT saying that all the victims are lying. In fact, I believe that four (including Victim 2 of the McQueary episode) of the original seven are essentially telling the truth and other three may very well have been manipulated into highly exaggerated stories by people with a huge incentive to get them to say certain things.

In many ways I see this situation with Victim 9 being a microcosm of this entire case and how it is that the truth has been so badly lost here. If nothing else, it certainly shows just how confident (and based on the media coverage, rightfully so) the victim's lawyers are that they can claim anything they want without even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

There are plenty of people to blame for this phenomenon, but I must once again make special mention of Scott Paterno. It was Scott Paterno who wrongly bought into the narrative that Mike McQueary saw an assault. It was Scott Paterno who, through the Paterno Report and the promoting of sex crimes expert Jim Clemente, embraced the notion that Sandusky was a “monster” and that victims always tell the truth. It was Scott Paterno who helped the media kill the evidence that the victim in the McQueary episode said numerous times that nothing happened. And it was Scott Paterno who didn’t even respond to media requests when Victim 9 patently lied about/slandered his father for money in a way which could have easily be proven false (I assume because he feared having the family criticized for calling out a false “victim” for lying; so much for Joe’s dying request for the truth to be found and honored).

When you wonder why Joe Paterno ended up being destroyed for crimes he had no real knowledge of and which probably didn’t even happen, just think back to this situation with Victim 9 and you will have at least some understanding of how the seeds of this abject injustice were sown.