In Sandusky’s Own Words

From jail, Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State assistant football coach, maintains his innocence. Rather than listening to him, it is best to let his words do the talking. Words are a direct representation of thoughts. The closest you can get to knowing what a person is thinking is to listen to the words that they say. People chose words that communicate what they are thinking. Psychological Narrative Analysis (PNA) uses Word Clues and grammar structures to analyze the behavioral characteristics and veracity of others.

When the story first broke, Bob Costas interviewed Sandusky on television. The following is an excerpt of an exchange between Costas and Sandusky. In this exchange, Sandusky admitted that he sought out young boys for sexual needs.

BOB COSTAS: But isn't what you're just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don't necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it's entirely possible that you could've helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn't that possible?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Well—you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of—my relationship with so many, many, young people. I would—I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and—and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have—I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.

A PNA analysis of this exchange is as follows:

1) Sandusky used Misdirection to avoid answering the question as to whether his actions were consistent with the actions of a pedophile. Instead, he changed the topic to the perceived good he has done to help other boys. Misdirection indicates deception.

2) Costas asked a yes or no question, but Sandusky did not provide a “yes” or “no” answer, which indicates deception.

3) Sandusky conceded that others might think his actions were similar to the actions of a pedophile, which indicates that he knew his actions were suspect.

4) Sandusky stated, “And I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped.” In this statement, Sandusky admitted that he sought out some young people for sexual needs, but not all the young people he met.

5) The Hanging Words “There are many that I didn’t have…” suggests that Sandusky wanted to say something but, for unknown reasons, changed his mind. Instead, he said, “I hardly had any contact with…” Within the context of the conversation, the possibility exists that what he wanted to say was “sexual contact.” To clarify his statement, Sandusky should have been asked to define what he meant by the word “contact.”

6) Sandusky began his response to Costas’ yes or no question with the word “Well,” which indicates that he intended to give a response that he knew Costas was not expecting.

PNA of Entire Television Interview

The following is a PNA of the transcript of the entire televised interview of Sandusky. The results of the PNA support Sandusky’s admission that he sought out selected young people for sexual needs.

BOB COSTAS: Mr. Sandusky, there's a 40-count indictment. The grand jury report contains specific detail. There are multiple accusers, multiple eyewitnesses to various aspects of the abuse. A reasonable person says where there's this much smoke, there must be plenty of fire. What do you say?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I say that I am innocent of those charges.

1) The Word Qualifier “I say” refers to what Sandusky says. He did not deny the charges. He only said he was innocent of those charges. His focus was on innocence or guilt, not on whether or not he committed the acts. The lack of a denial indicates deception.

2) The Word Qualifier “those” suggests that he may not be innocent of other charges.

BOB COSTAS: Innocent? Completely innocent and falsely accused in every aspect?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Well, I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I—I have showered after workouts. I—I have hugged them and I—I have touched their leg. Without intent of sexual contact. But—so if—if you look at it that way—there are things that—that—wouldn't—you know, would be accurate.

1) Costas asked a yes or no question, but Sandusky did not provide a “yes” or “no” answer, which indicates deception.

2) Sandusky said, “Well, I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things.” As the sentence stands, he admitted to what Costas alluded to in his first question. In other words, he committed some acts of abuse. However, Sandusky did not completely define what he meant by the word “things.” He provided a list of activities included in his definition. It is not clear if he included abuse in that definition and intentionally or unintentionally failed to list that activity out loud.

3) Sandusky used an If/Then Conditional, “But—so if—if you look at it that way—there are things that—that—wouldn't—you know, would be accurate.” As the sentence stands, if the activities Sandusky listed were only considered, then the accusations would be accurate. However, Sandusky said “wouldn’t” [be accurate], which contradicts his If/Then Conditional. It is difficult to determine if Sandusky was referring to the activities within parameters of his If/Then Conditional or to the activities that actually occurred. This vagueness indicates deception.

4) Sandusky admitted that he horsed around with kids, showered with them, hugged them, and touched them, but then used the Spontaneous Negation “Without intent of sexual contact.” Spontaneous Negations indicate a high probability of deception.

5) The Repeated Words “I—I,” “if—if,” and “that—that” indicate anxiety. Liars often experience anxiety for fear of being caught in their lies.

6) The Push-Pull Word “that way” suggests that there is another way to interpret the activities that Sandusky described.

7) Sandusky began his response to Costas’ yes or no question with the word “well,” which indicates that he intended to give a response that he knew Costas was not expecting.

BOB COSTAS: Are you denying that you had any inappropriate sexual contact with any of these underage boys?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Yes, I—yes I am.

1) Sandusky’s “yes” answer only means that he denied the accusations; he never denied that he had inappropriate sexual contact with any of the underage boys.

2) The repeated words “Yes, I—yes I am.” indicates anxiety. Liars often experience anxiety for fear of being caught in their lies.

3) Costas should have asked a more direct question such as: “Did you ever have inappropriate sexual contact with any underage boys?” The focus of this question is on whether or not he did the acts, not if he would deny doing the acts.

BOB COSTAS: Never touched their genitals? Never engaged in oral sex?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Right.

1) Costas asked two questions. It is not certain which question Sandusky responded to. If he touched their genitals but did not engage in oral sex or vice versa, then his answer is truthful. If he did not engage in both activities, then his answer is truthful. If he engaged in both activities, then his answer is deceptive. Costas should have asked the questions separately to obtain a more accurate answer.

BOB COSTAS: What about Mike McQuery, the grad assistant who in 2002 walked into the shower where he says in specific detail that you were forcibly raping a boy who appeared to be ten or 11 years old? That his hands were up against the shower wall and he heard rhythmic slap, slap, slapping sounds and he described that as a rape?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I would say that that's false.

1) Again, Sandusky did not deny raping the boy. He only said that he would say that the accusation was false.

2) The word “would” represents Future in the Past. Sandusky told Costas what he would say, which may or may not reflect reality. Future in the Past indicates deception.

BOB COSTAS: What would be his motive to lie?

JERRY SANDUSKY: You'd have to ask him that.

1) This answer is truthful because Sandusky does not know the alleged victim’s motive.

BOB COSTAS: Are you a pedophile?

JERRY SANDUSKY: No.

1) A simple “yes” or “no” answer to a yes or no question indicates truthfulness. The possibility exists that Sandusky may be guilty of child sexual abuse, but not think of himself as a pedophile. A simple way to clarify any confusion is to ask Sandusky to provide his definition of the word “pedophile.”

BOB COSTAS: How would you account for so many accusations coming from different people at different times, many of whom undoubtedly feel shame over this, so they have no apparent motive to expose themselves to what might come along with this. They have no apparent motive. You have an obvious motive to either deny to yourself or to deny to us what you've been accused of. What's their motive to make the accusations?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I can't account for, you know, their motives to make those allegations. I—you know, that's not for me to say. That would be for them to say.

1) This answer is truthful because Sandusky does not know the alleged victim’s motive.

BOB COSTAS: What did happen in the shower the night that Mike McQuery happened upon you and the young boy?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Okay, we—we were showering and—and horsing around. And he actually turned all the showers on and was—actually sliding—across the—the floor. And—and we were—as I recall possibly like snapping a towel, horseplay.

1) The pronoun “we” indicates that Sandusky considered his actions with the alleged victim as mutual.

2) The Word Qualifier “horsing around” needs to be defined by Sandusky. The possibility exists that his definition of “horsing around” may include sexual activities.

3) The pauses in Sandusky’s response indicates that he is not sure what happened or he was searching for words that circumvent him accurately describing what happened.

4) The Word Qualifiers “possibly” and “like” indicate that this activity may not have occurred.

BOB COSTAS: In 1998, a mother confronts you about taking a shower with her son and inappropriately touching him. Two detectives eavesdrop on a conversation with you, and you admit that maybe your private parts touched her son. What happened there?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I can't exactly recall what was said there. In terms of—what I did say was that if he felt that way, then I was wrong, and I didn't want to leave that kind of impression. I did lift him. And—that's what I said.

1) The Push-Pull Word "exactly” indicates that he can generally recall what happened.

2) Sandusky used the Word Qualifier “lift him,” but did not provide a definition for this action. The possibility exists that Sandusky’s definition of the word “lift” might include sexual activity.

3) The Word Qualifiers “possibility” and “like” indicates that Sandusky may not have independent recall of doing this activity.

BOB COSTAS: During one of those conversations, you said, "I understand, I was wrong, I wish I could get forgiveness," speaking now with the mother. "I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead." A guy falsely accused or a guy whose actions have been misinterpreted doesn't respond that way, does he?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I don't know. I didn't say, to my recollection that I wish I were dead. I—I was hopeful that we could reconcile things. And maintain some kind of relationship which we have done for many, many years. And she was very assertive at making sure that we were connected.

1) The Word Clue “reconcile” suggests that Sandusky knew that he did something wrong that needed reconciliation. If he did not do what the mother accused him of, then no reconciliation would be needed.

2) The Word Clue “maintain some kind of relationship” indicates that Sandusky knew their relationship was in disrepair. The fact that Sandusky wanted to reconcile the relationship indicates that he knew he did something inappropriate and may have felt a degree of guilt or he just wanted to repair the relationship to avoid a formal investigation.

3) The pronoun “we” indicates that Sandusky still felt as though he had a relationship with the mother.

4) Sandusky did not recall that he said, “I wish I were dead’” but he did not deny that he said, "I understand, I was wrong, I wish I could get forgiveness," which leaves open the possibility that he recalled saying this.

BOB COSTAS: You say you're not a pedophile.

JERRY SANDUSKY: Right.

1) Again, Costas asked Sandusky what he said he is not, not what he actually is. Further, Sandusky has not yet defined what the word “pedophile” means to him. Costas should have asked Sandusky about specific behaviors instead of referring to the term “pedophile,” which has a broad interpretation.

BOB COSTAS: But you're a man who by his own admission has showered with young boys, highly inappropriate. Who has continually put himself in the presence of young boys, volunteer high school coach, volunteer at a small local college,—even after you were largely disassociated from Penn States. Multiple reports of you getting into bed with young boys who stayed at your house in a room in the basement. How do you account for these things? And if you're not a pedophile, then what are you?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Well, I'm a person that has taken a strong interest. I'm a very passionate person in terms of trying to make a difference in the lives of some young people. I worked very hard to try to connect with them. To make them feel good about themselves. To—be something significant in their lives. Maybe this gets misinterpreted, has gotten depending on—I know a lot of young people where it hasn't. I have worked with many, many young people where there has been no misinterpretation of my actions and I have made a very significant difference in their lives.

1) Sandusky said, “To make them feel good about themselves.” This statement suggests that Sandusky knew the boys he targeted to help were insecure. Kids who are insecure are often targeted by pedophiles.

2) Sandusky said that his actions got misinterpreted, which suggest that he knew his actions were often perceived as inappropriate, but not in all cases. He justifies his questionable behavior in some instances by providing instances where his actions were not misinterpreted. Anecdotal evidence suggests that pedophiles often rationalize their bad behavior by providing a long list of the positive things they have done to their victims or the victim communities.

BOB COSTAS: But isn't what you're just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don't necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it's entirely possible that you could've helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn't that possible?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Well—you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of—my relationship with so many, many young people. I would—I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and—and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have—I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.

1) Sandusky used Misdirection to avoid answering the question as to whether his actions were consistent with the actions of a pedophile. Instead, he changed the topic to the perceived good he has done to help other boys. Misdirection is an indicator of deception.

2) Costas asked a yes or no question, but Sandusky did not provide a “yes” or “no” answer, which indicates deception.

3) Sandusky conceded that others might think his actions were similar to the actions of a pedophile, which indicates that he knows that his actions are suspect.

4) Sandusky stated, “And I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped.” In this statement Sandusky admitted that he sought out selected young people for sexual needs, but not all the young people he meets.

5) The Hanging Words “There are many that I didn’t have—” suggests that Sandusky wanted to say something but, for unknown reasons, changed his mind. Instead, he said, “I hardly had any contact with…” Within the context of the conversation, the possibility exists that what he wanted to say was “sexual contact.” To clarify his statement, Sandusky should have been asked to define what he means by the word “contact.”

6) Sandusky began his response to Costas’ yes or no with the word “Well,” which indicates that he intends to give a response that he knows Costas is not expecting.

BOB COSTAS: Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?

1) Sandusky answered a question with a question, which indicates deception.

BOB COSTAS: Yes.

JERRY SANDUSKY: Sexually attracted, you know, I—I enjoy young people. I—I love to be around them. I—I—but no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys.

1) The repeated words “I—I” indicate anxiety.

2) Sandusky did not provide a “yes” or “no” answer to a yes or no question, which indicates deception.

3) The Word Qualifier “young boys” leaves open the possibility that Sandusky is sexually attracted to “young men” or other equivalent descriptors. To clarify this possible confusion, Sandusky should have been asked for his definition of “young boys.”

BOB COSTAS: When Mike McQueary saw what he says was a rape in the shower in 2002, he reported it the next day to Joe Paterno. To your knowledge, did Joe Paterno have any information regarding objectionable activities on your part prior to that report in 2002?

JERRY SANDUSKY: My—I—I can't totally answer that question. My answer would be no. I mean, that would be my guess. That I don't think he had information.

1) The Repeated Words “I—I” indicate anxiety.

2) The Push-Pull “I can’t totally answer that question,” indicates that he could partially answer that question. Costas should have asked him, “What is your partial answer then?”

3) Sandusky used Future in the Past, “My answer would be no” and “That would be my guess.” He did not say what his answer was, only what it would be. Future in the Past indicates deception. His answer also leaves open the possibility that Paterno had knowledge of Sandusky’s activities.

4) The Word Qualifier “think” also leaves open the possibility that Paterno had knowledge of Sandusky’s activities.

BOB COSTAS: If there had been a thorough investigation of you in 1998, or in 2002 either by university officials or by local law enforcement, would something have come out of that that would've been damaging to Joe Paterno and Penn State beyond the initial embarrassment of having a prominent coach so accused, which might hurt recruiting, might hurt image. Was there something there that Penn State officials had reason to fear?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Well, I think that will be determined as—as this is evaluated. If—if people give it a chance to be evaluated, then I think that will be up to people to decide whether or not there would've been loss—for Joe Paterno and if they—if that had been evaluated as it's going to be.

1) Sandusky began his response to Costas’ yes or no with the word “well,” which indicates that he intended to give a response that he knew Costas was not expecting.

2) The Repeated Words “If—if” indicate anxiety.

3) Sandusky did not provide a “yes” or “no” answer to a yes or no question, which indicates deception.

4) The Word Clue “I think it will be up to people to decide…” suggests the possibility that he knows what he did was wrong and his actions would adversely affect Paterno, but, instead of directly answering the question, he wanted to leave that up to the people. If he knew his actions would not adversely affect Paterno he would have answered “no,” which suggests that he had, at least, feeling that his actions would adversely affect Paternao.

5) Sandusky’s response was vague and confusing, which indicates deception.

BOB COSTAS: Did Joe Paterno at any time ever speak to you directly about your behavior?

JERRY SANDUSKY: No.

1) Answering “yes” or “no” to a yes or no question indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: Never?

JERRY SANDUSKY: No.

1) Answering “yes” or “no” to a yes or no question indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: You were around the program, you used the weight room up until recently. You were seen at Penn State events. How did Joe Paterno greet you? What was your interaction like with him subsequent to 2002?

JERRY SANDUSKY: He greeted me as he always had if I saw him at—football practice. It was cordial. We didn't see each other very much. I—the last time I saw him was this summer—at a golf outing. And—we talked briefly, but he was—he was among a lot of people at that time.

1) The First person-Simple Past Formula, which indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: He never asked you about what you might have done? He never asked you if you needed help? If you needed counseling?

JERRY SANDUSKY: No. No.

1) Answering “yes” or “no” to a yes or no question indicates truthfulness.

2) The Repeated Words “No. No” indicate anxiety.

BOB COSTAS: Never? Never expressed disapproval of any kind?

JERRY SANDUSKY: No.

1) Answering “yes” or “no” to a yes or no question indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: In 1999, you retired from the Penn State football program. You were in your mid-50's, a highly successful assistant coach. You had been told you would never succeed Joe Paterno, but you would've been a prime candidate given all your success and the prestigious program you were a part of, a prime candidate for any high profile opening elsewhere in the country. Why didn't you pursue such a thing?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I did.

1) The First person-Simple Past Formula, which indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: In 1999?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I guess it would've been—in 2000.

1) The Word Qualifier “guess” indicates that Sandusky is not sure about this date.

BOB COSTAS: What jobs did you pursue?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Virginia.

1) A direct answer to a direct question indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: And what happened? Were you interviewed there?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Yes.

1) Answering “yes” or “no” to a yes or no question indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: And did they do a background check on you? And did it reveal anything?

JERRY SANDUSKY: I don't know what kind of checks they did. If they did, it wouldn't have revealed anything because I've had those checks and, you know, then and—and shortly after.

1) The First person-Simple Past Formula, which indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: Are you prepared to accept a plea deal if your attorney says this is the best we can do?

JERRY SANDUSKY: No.

1) Answering “yes” or “no” to a yes or no question indicates truthfulness.

BOB COSTAS: And it involves an admission of substantial guilt? Would you accept that?

JERRY SANDUSKY: No. Without knowing—you know, I say that—without knowing what in the world you're talking about or what they would be talking about. But I would say no, I'm not interested in it.

1) Answering “yes” or “no” to a yes or no question indicates truthfulness.

2) The remainder of Sandusky’s answer is vague, which indicates deception.

3) Sandusky did not deny the allegations, which indicates deception.

(End of televised portion of the interview)