by Bill Moushey
In reality, however, Amendola had another reason for waiving the case to trial. He knew testimony from a parade of accusers would become fodder for a second media onslaught against his client that wouldn’t end for weeks. Although the media storm technically had nothing to do with what happened inside the courtroom, Amendola wanted to curb the tide of negative publicity, so he continued performing his own monumental spin job. There were no plea bargains under way, and he was eager to take the case to trial, he chirped into a public address system in front of the courthouse. In a point-by-point rebuttal of charges and wide-ranging accusations against Sandusky’s accusers, Amendola answered questions for over an hour. He admitted that while his client was prepared to fight, he was “depressed”: “He’s devastated because everything he has done in his life, all of the good things, have been turned upside down.” Meanwhile Sandusky was driven back home.
As for the young men who had accused him of pedophilia, Amendola said both Sandusky and his wife were mystified. They had always considered some of those boys part of their extended family. He also said the Sanduskys had spent time in the past year with at least two of the accusers, not knowing the young men were preparing to testify before the grand jury or had already done so. He scoffed at the presentment’s implication that those contacts were veiled efforts to intimidate the young men.
Amendola agreed with a questioner who said that the burdens on the defense were akin to climbers starting a hike to reach the summit of Mount Everest. He took no mercy on anyone who had any accusatory things to say about his client. He argued that some of the accusations against Sandusky didn’t remotely involve sexual contact. Showering with a boy after a workout might seem odd, Amendola said, but it did not rise to the level of a crime. He failed to address the perverse things his client was alleged to have done with the young boys in the shower.
Amendola reserved his most damning commentary for Mike McQueary. It was McQueary who testified to the grand jury that he saw Sandusky molesting a ten-year-old boy. Despite the fact that there were at least ten accusers against Sandusky, Amendola characterized McQueary as the “centerpiece” of the state’s case against his client. He said he believed McQueary’s testimony was the reason charges were pursued against Sandusky, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz. Amendola also said it was McQueary’s statements that led to the ouster of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier.
Amendola claimed that although the grand jury considered McQueary’s testimony “extremely credible,” information since then had shown major inconsistencies in what the assistant coach, now on paid leave, saw and did. He said that questions about whether McQueary stopped the alleged assault, whether he reported it to police, exactly what he told Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, and a variety of other issues had been raised since the release of the grand jury’s presentment. He had found so many inconsistencies that he could “wipe [McQueary] off of this case.” Sandusky’s attorney found it unbelievable and unimaginable that McQueary went into a locker room, witnessed Sandusky anally assaulting a ten-year-old boy, but did nothing to come to the child’s aid and didn’t call police. The fact that he instead went home to tell his father, who then suggested he take the matter to Paterno instead of the police, was also highly questionable. He said another of McQueary’s stories also didn’t make sense: in one version he told Curley and Schultz specific sexual details of the shower encounter, and in another, milder version he mentioned only “horsing around” and “horseplay.” Amendola insisted that Curley and Schultz, who he called decent and conservative men, would not have reacted to serious criminal behaviors such as child rape with a mild admonishment to Sandusky to stop taking showers with children. “If you believe that, I suggest you dial 1-800-REALITY,” Amendola said, not realizing that number is for a pay-per-call phone service offering gay and bisexual pornography.
Amendola charged that the accusers were driven by the chance to make money off Sandusky. He pointed to the ranks of personal injury and civil rights lawyers present that day to support his claim. He suspected collusion among the accusers, all bent on a big payday from lawsuits against Penn State and The Second Mile. One of the first things he was going to do was investigate whether the young men who made the allegations against Sandusky knew each other. He planned to seek records of text messages, telephone calls, and other data to see if they had had contact with each other. “We’re ready to defend, always have been ready to defend,” he said.
Amendola’s comments brought quick and specific rebukes, also on the courthouse lawn, from the pack of lawyers he chastised. Just as he had done, the lawyers of the young men made the rounds from CNN to NBC, CBS, ABC, and virtually every print and Internet news organization in America to challenge the assertions of Sandusky’s lawyer and to buttress the resolve of their clients.
Among them was Ben Andreozzi, one of the lawyers for the young man identified as Victim 4, who was to be the first witness to face Sandusky at his preliminary hearing. Andreozzi said his client, who had suffered long-term abuse from Sandusky, had experienced a range of emotions. Initially he had had no desire to become involved in the trial. Then he became terrified about testifying but had found the inner resolve to step up. After he learned the preliminary hearing was waived, the young man gave Andreozzi a handwritten statement to be read to the media: “This is the most difficult time of my life. I can’t put into words how unbearable this has been on my life, both physically and mentally. I can’t believe they put us through this until the last second only to waive the hearing. I want to thank all of the people who have shown support. Regardless of the decision to waive the hearing, nothing has changed. I will still stand my ground, testify and speak the truth.” Andreozzi pointed out that the young man underlined the word “truth” three times in his statement. “I do think it is important to see what the victims are going through,” Andreozzi said.
Lawyers for other victims offered some insights about depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and other mental health issues their clients had battled. Some of the young men had found it difficult to focus on careers because Sandusky had destroyed their psyches, the attorneys said. On the other hand, lawyers for at least two of the accusers said their clients had earned college degrees and built careers and relationships despite their scars. It had taken years of introspection to move ahead, but most had persevered, not knowing there were others who faced the same issues.
As for collusion, Andreozzi said his client had apologized to some of the younger accusers for not having the courage to come forward sooner. If Amendola wanted to score him over that, “then shame on him.” “To suggest these young men should not be in communication with each other is somewhat disingenuous. I think it is important for their recovery to have the opportunity at some point to share their stories in a group session.”
On the issue of a financial windfall, Andreozzi said he had represented his client for nearly a year prior to the indictments. He figured Sandusky had few unencumbered assets, so the odds were slim of ever reaping a significant financial settlement. He said he did not learn that prosecutors had also accused Penn State and The Second Mile of a cover-up—which could make them liable for damages in civil court—until he read the grand jury presentment.
Two of the lawyers representing Victim 6 called Sandusky “a coward” for waiving the hearing. Their client was the child whose mother had first reported Sandusky in 1998 for showering naked with her son in the Penn State football locker room. “Anyone who would abuse a child is by definition a coward,” said one of the attorneys, Ken Suggs, as reporters crowded around him. Suggs and his co-counsel, Howard Janet, said that after their client’s mother reported Sandusky to police, Sandusky admitted what he had done and ultimately said his life as he knew it was over. “The guy said he wished he was dead,” said Janet.
Janet acknowledged that his client had dined with Sandusky and his wife in the summer of 2011, but as to being called as a character witness for Sandusky, he said nothing could be further from the truth. “It is gro
tesque that Sandusky or his lawyer would suggest that a victim of molestation attending a dinner Sandusky invited him to is somehow a defense to the indefensible actions of which Sandusky has been accused.” Victim 6 had not seen Sandusky for many years when he got a call from the man, who had known for more than two years that he was the subject of a grand jury probe. That was in July 2011, just four months before Sandusky would be indicted. Almost all of the evidence had been presented. Sandusky, according to the young man’s lawyer, invited his client to dinner. Sandusky pitched the dinner “to prospective attendees as an opportunity to catch up with former Second Mile participants,” even though he had resigned from the charity two years earlier.
Janet said authorities investigating Sandusky were notified and had given their seal of approval for Victim 6 to attend. “They even wanted him to wear an electronic listening device. Though he opted not to wear the ‘wire’ because he was nervous about doing so, he reported details back to law enforcement.”
According to Janet and Suggs, more questions than answers emerged from Sandusky’s dinner with their client. They would later post them on the firm’s website: “Why was he arranging to meet with victims while under investigation? Was he trying to tamper with or improperly influence potential witnesses? Was he trying to use the victims’ attendance at dinner to discredit their accusations against him as part of a devious strategic plan of defense? Did he plan all along to try to influence the public or the jury pool by pointing to victim’s attendance at the dinner? Why did he keep showering these children with gifts and access to Penn State football games long after they left The Second Mile and had become adults? Does he truly believe that ‘relationships’ can be built on the sort of inappropriate interactions he is accused of initiating with these boys?”
The lawyers, who represent child victims nationally, said their client was intent on telling the truth when he took the witness stand. “Hopefully, as a result of Victim 6 and others having the courage to come forward, not only will justice be done, but it will aid in their healing. We have a responsibility to shine a bright light on the practice of ‘grooming’ vulnerable children for sexual activity—especially when it is enabled by institutional indifference. Today we call on Sandusky and his lawyer to stop the manipulation and mental abuse of these former Second Mile children and Penn State devotees so that this matter may be resolved quickly and healing may get underway.”
As for the client he represents, Janet has said the twenty-seven-year-old had not decided if he wanted to file a civil suit in the matter. The young man, who has become deeply religious since his experiences with Sandusky, had no plans to do anything about the abuse he suffered until investigators visited him. That’s when he contacted Janet. At the time he did not know there were other victims of Sandusky’s abuse. Janet said one of the most profound moments of the entire chain of events came when Victim 6 finally got a chance to read the twenty-three-page presentment against Sandusky. His lawyer said he was devastated. “He cried. He didn’t cry for what happened to him. He cried for the others.”
Tom Kline of the Philadelphia law firm Kline and Specter would not reveal which of the alleged victims he represented. Kline said the day was a seminal event for Sandusky’s accusers. It enabled them to come away from the hearing with a feeling of mutual support, even though technically nothing had happened. “That whole day was one where they all realized there was strength in numbers. Anybody who had any reservations about coming forward who went through that process became steadfast in their determination to see it through.” Kline suggested the coalescing of energy among those readying themselves to testify was bad for Sandusky in the short and long run. That was especially true for most of the accusers, who did not seek the public light or revenge against Sandusky, but got involved after “a knock at the door” from investigators in late 2010 or early 2011. Now all of them knew they were not alone.
Amendola didn’t hear the rebukes from the alleged victims’ lawyers because he was still doing interviews across the courthouse lawn. Later he said he talked as much as he could because his client had been crucified around the world. He wanted to achieve some balance in coverage so folks would have an open mind about his client. He said he planned to try the case in Centre County because extensive pretrial publicity was so pervasive around the nation there really was no other place to take it. He admitted the stakes were high: “This is the fight of Jerry Sandusky’s life and we plan to fight this to the death.”
Chapter 14
The Great Pretender
Jerry Sandusky certainly had the credentials to become the head football coach at other universities. He owned two national championship rings for coaching the defenses of the 1982 and 1986 Penn State teams that had finished No. 1 in the country, and as the reigning Dean of Linebacker U., he was feeding the National Football League a steady flow of linebackers and other defensive talent. Potential employers noticed and called with head coach job opportunities. In the years following Penn State’s second championship, Sandusky was wooed by Boston College, Temple University, the University of Maryland, and the University of Virginia. Whether or not he turned them all down or didn’t get the job after all, Sandusky remained at Penn State as a subordinate to Joe Paterno. The reason for staying, Sandusky would say, was that he loved the small-town atmosphere of State College surrounding the big-time football success at Penn State, and he loved the nurturing relationships with the at-risk kids being referred to his charity. But was there an ulterior motive in spurning outside offers? Did The Second Mile provide him, as the supporting documents of his indictment charged, with a renewable and overlapping supply of prey in a pedophile pipeline? Did he use the Penn State campus he professed to love as a personal playground to groom youngsters for sinister purposes?
Lawyers and counselors of sexual abuse victims have said that Sandusky’s inappropriate relationships with boys dated back to shortly after he founded The Second Mile as a group home in 1977. The indictments and lawsuits contain accounts that start in 1992. Each young man thought he had a special relationship with Sandusky. Each thought he was the only one targeted as Sandusky built a bond of trust over time and then double-crossed him. Each of the boys’ relationships with Sandusky ended when they grew up, moved on, or found excuses to end their bond with him.
One young man who has filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia against Sandusky but was not among those who testified before the investigating grand jury, said he had been referred to The Second Mile in 1992, when he was ten years old. He said Sandusky took him to Penn State football facilities and Nittany Lions’ games, and he was also Sandusky’s guest at football games played by the Philadelphia Eagles. In his lawsuit, the young man said he was sexually abused more than one hundred times by Sandusky at Penn State facilities or at Sandusky’s home in State College. The abuse continued for four years, through 1996. He kept the abuse secret for more than fifteen years because Sandusky threatened to harm his family if he ever told anyone, according to the lawsuit.
Another young man said under oath to the statewide investigating grand jury that in 1994, when he was ten years old, a school counselor had recommended that he attend the programs offered by The Second Mile. He was warmly welcomed to the program by the jovial mentor and founder. The young man said that when he rode in Sandusky’s Cadillac, the coach would touch him improperly, rubbing his leg and putting his hand down his pants en route to sporting events and workouts. Inappropriate contact was also made in the football locker room in Holuba Hall on the Penn State campus and in the basement bedroom of Sandusky’s house, where the former coach would lie down behind the boy and envelope him in his arms.
If this child’s abuse began in 1994, as he has alleged, Sandusky would already have been abusing the boy who filed suit in Philadelphia who claimed his assaults lasted from 1992 through 1996. This is a common modus operandi for serial pedophiles. When one boy is aging toward adolescence, the pedophile will groom a younger one to replace him when the time is right.
The young man who was scheduled to be the first witness to testify at Sandusky’s preliminary hearing said he was shown much affection when he had first met the coach through The Second Mile, when he was twelve or thirteen in 1996 or 1997. His relationship with Sandusky was not abnormal for three years, and Sandusky even invited him to a family picnic. But one day Sandusky grabbed him inappropriately when the two of them were playing around in a swimming pool. Sexual abuse later occurred in the Penn State football showers and eventually at Sandusky’s home, the young man said.
