Verified by 
With a guilty verdict, a jury confirmed what the Sandusky victims alleged and what trial observers knew: Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. Not just any pedophile, but a clever one, an intelligent one. One that created a foundation which lured young boys. As the director of the foundation, Sandusky had access to a steady stable of powerless young boys. Of course, any child victim is powerless, but in this case, the victims were even more vulnerable. They were “troubled” youngsters with “issues” or children from single parent families, without assets or political connections. How would they ever be believed, even if they decided to tell?
And most children do not tell.
As a former sex crimes prosecutor and a trial judge with experience sentencing sexual predators, I’ve seen these cases before.
In one trial, the neighborhood “good guy” used to have regular sleepovers for the preteen boys in the subdivision. He had all the fun toys: a foosball table, latest video player and video games. Anything that would attract a preteen. All of the boys were from low income, single parent households. The Moms were grateful to have what they thought was a safe place for their boys to hang out. The stage was set. The abuse of one young boy continued for a few years. Finally, the boy reported it. At that time, he was a bit older and was smart enough to recognize that his younger brother was now being groomed by the defendant.
Like Sandusky, this defendant denied the charges and demanded a jury trial. By the time of the trial, the victim was an adult. He made a compelling and believable witness. On cross examination, he was asked about some letters that he had written to the defendant. The idea was, “well, if this guy violated you, why would you keep in touch with him?” I’ll never forget his answer. With a tremulous voice, he responded, “I guess I just wanted him to know that despite everything, I turned out OK”. There wasn’t a sound in the courtroom when he finished his testimony. The jury convicted the defendant and he is currently serving a 25 year sentence.
One of the most heart wrenching moments of the Sandusky trial was the testimony of the mother of one of the victims. She blamed herself for putting her child in harm’s way. In hindsight, this is easy to do. But most parents probably would have done the same thing. Sandusky offered her child opportunities and contacts that she never could. Besides, parents are grateful to someone who helps their child.
Based on my experience, here are some observations about pedophilia which might prove helpful:
• Pedophiles seek places, jobs, volunteer opportunities that put them in close contact with children: youth minister or priest, scout leader, playground worker, etc. As a disclaimer, of course, not everyone in these areas is a pedophile. But every pedophile I have dealt with has some ability to be in touch with children. In one of our local cases, a child protective social worker was caught with child pornography. Every day, this man had access to frightened, abused children.
• Pedophiles usually have a “type” or a certain age that appeals to them. In fact, when the abuser’s victim ages out, the abuser targets a younger child. Moving to a younger sibling has often motivated victims to speak out. They may have endured the abuse but they do not want a sibling to endure it. Pedophiles also seem to have a creepy sixth sense of which child would be most vulnerable.
• Once a pedophile selects a victim, the grooming begins. Depending on the age and maturity level of the child, it might start with watching porno together and casual contact: a bear hug, wrestling, snuggling; then “accidental” sexual contact: brushing against the groin or butt. If there is no forceful rebuff by the target, the abuser moves to overt sexual type behavior: showering together, towel slapping while naked, sleeping in the same bed.
I had one abuser (the Dad) who removed the bathroom door because he said it needed repair. The repairs took a long time and Dad would venture into the bathroom while his one daughter was bathing. Mom didn’t think anything of it since daughter was only 8 at the time. Dad was later convicted of sexual abuse of the 8 year old.
• Grooming also has a pattern of gifts, favors, treats, almost a courting ritual. This also allows the abuser to use the “look what I’ve done for you” plea, should the child start to balk at the abuse.
In some of the trial documents, the Commonwealth introduced letters that Sandusky had written to one of his victims, after the victim stopped going to Sandusky’s house. These missives take on an unctuous, self-pitying tone.
Sandusky writes:
“I know I have made my share of mistakes. However, I hope I will be able to say that I cared. There has been love in my heart.”
• Pedophiles will continue to abuse children until caught. And they never expect to be caught. To me, the scariest part of the Sandusky trial was the fact that there were signs along the way. Back in the late 90’s, Sandusky was suspected of abuse . . . and investigated. But nothing came of it. Later, at the university, at least one person had voiced concerns. He continued to be employed. Perhaps this further emboldened him. We know it didn’t stop him.
• Pedophilia cases are typically hard to prosecute. The usual case has an accuser and an abuser . . . and no other witnesses. The Sandusky trial was not the norm: there was independent confirmation of at least certain aspects, i.e. the assistant coach who saw the shower scene.
• Many cases with pedophiles are interfamilial: Grandpa, Dad or a favorite uncle. This, too, impedes prosecution. When family members are the offenders, quelling strife within the family can trump the judicial process. When Dad is the offender, Mom may side with Dad for financial or psychological reasons. When I prosecuted these cases, I frequently found that many women who marry child predators turn out to have been victims themselves.
We don’t know why Mrs. Sandusky continued to support her husband. Some of the boys were victimized in the home and screamed out so people assume she must have known. But predators like Sandusky are adept at covering their tracks. And people can be in denial. To admit to herself that she has, in essence, been living a sham life must be devastating.
I have taken many classes on child predators but I don't pretend to understand the "why". I leave that to the mental health experts. I only understand the "how"- how to deal with them. They cannot be cured; they cannot be trusted around children. Many times the offenders are offered probation because the cases are difficult to prosecute, as mentioned above. If they are on supervision, they need a probation officer who understands the manipulative nature of the offender. And they should be carefully monitored. Otherwise, they will reoffend.
I suppose the main lesson to be learned from all this is : Mom always said “don’t take candy from strangers”. Turns out, it’s not the strangers we need to fear.
