Friday, October 12, 2012

Jerry Sandusky Letter

For us, Sandusky letter is not only void of a Reliable Denial, it shows much, much more.

It can be found here

Note:
1.  What comes first
2.  What is in the negative
3.  The order of all names
4.  Note what he "re lives" as he writes
5.  Note who is responsible for molestations
6.  Note any self rebuttal ("but, however")

14 comments:

emerald said...

Thanks for the link. It is fascinating to read the letters to the judge. Initial thoughts that jump out at me from Dottie's letter:

Quote: "Our house was a fun house with lots of games, picnics, laughs and caring."

The order interesting, with games appearing first and caring last. What kind of games? In the context of this case, her quote is kind of creepy.

Quote: "I never saw him doing anything inappropriate to any child, if I had, as a Mother and Grandmother I would have taken action."

I am learning that "never" does not equal a reliable denial. Would it be stronger if she stated, "He did not do anything inappropriate to any child"?

What kind of action would she have taken? Looking away or pretending not to notice could fit into her possible actions. If I saw someone molesting a child, I would do things at once: call the police and rush to rescue to separate the victim from the attacker. Dottie might want us to assume this is what she meant by "take action" but she does not clarify.

Why would she take action as a "mother and grandmother"? Why not as a wife? Why not as a protector of children? Why does she even need to explain what role would prompt her to "take action" ? I would expect any person, regardless of role, to immediately rescue a child that is being abused. Before she was a mother or a grandmother, would she not have taken action? Does she think that her husband abusing children is fine because he is not a mother or a grandmother?

Anonymous said...

She also disparages the victim, her own son, very harshly...

C5H11ONO said...

Apparently Matt has caused quite a stir for Dottie. Her letter primarily included the pronoun "I", except when discussing Matt. Then all of a sudden, "we". Is this because she was being deceptive about him and couldn't use the first person singular "I"? Or is this because "we" constitutes unity and cooperation? I think Jerry and her were in cahoots to write negatively about Matt.

She refers to Jerry being the father of their "children", then changes to "kids" when referring to them in the presence of others.

She referred to one in particular as a "kid" when Jerry was trying to "help" him-- (attempted, but failed). I don't think this one accused him, because she refers to the ones that actually were abused as "accusers" not kids.

She refers to Matt as "our son", is this because of the adoption? She referred to him as a person (gender neutral). She accuses him of stealing money and "items" from "our family". Who is our family? Is it her and Jerry? She is being vague in her accusation.

I believe this woman knew what was going on and chose to ignore it. She stated she never saw him do anything. Using never as opposed to didn't makes her denial unreliable.

Lemon said...

page 2
"Then I thought of not being able to be with my wife Dottie, not seeing our dog, Bo, not being there for our kids, not seeing our grandchildren mature, not being with friends, not playing games with loved ones and friends, helping others less, laughing less, and crying more."
1. Dottie
2. Bo the dog
3. kids
4. grandchildren
5. friends
6. loved ones and friends (playing games with- I wonder at his definition of "playing games with"
7. others


page 1
"Those who have worked with troubled lives realize a common reaction to those with low self esteem is often to blame others."
Jerry didn't even see the irony of this statement.

Anonymous said...

Maybe she never did "see" it...

Did she hear it? Did she fear it? Did Dottie Sandusky suspect it? Did Dottie do everything she could to bury the thought and try to convince herself that what she feared, suspected, imagined or dreaded was true was actually not?

Who and what was Dottie protecting? Innocent children? Her not-monster husband? Or, was Dottie protecting her own self? Her social status, others' impressions of her, her financial means and lifestyle?

I think I know the answer!

QChick said...

Dottie may have never seen anything inappropriate; but she may have suspected or known without seeing. Earlier in the letter she says that Jerry is very truthful with her, even if the the truth is painful. I may be interjecting what I want to believe, but if I have a friend tell me she is having an affair but have not seen her interact with said person. I could truthfully say that I had not seen her behave in any inappropraite matter. That does not mean that I dont know that she really is having an affair.

Anonymous said...

You make some excellent points Emerald. I haven't read the letters yet but it wouldn't surprise me in any of the denials Dottie Sandusky made.

Do any of these wives whose husbands' are child molestors/rapists EVER admit that they knew what they knew, YET they stayed with him? It is VERY rare that a husband can pull off this kind of deciet right in the home and the wife never knows, questions or suspects anything.

Does she want us to actually believe that she didn't even become aware back when Jerry was investigated by the DA's office, the grand jury, had bona fide witnesses and was nearly prosecuted in 1998, THIRTEEN YEARS EARLIER? She didn't become suspicious after THAT? Not even when Ray Gricar quietly closed the case without filing charges, ignoring the recommendations, then later mysteriously disappeared?

She makes no connection to her husband raping little boys even after all THAT? Never wondered when her hubby made road trips, flying with and staying alone in motels/hotels with little boys? Not even when he slept alone with one in the basement, never coming to bed all night> Deny, deny. She must think everyone is stupid and blind as a bat but her.

In many cases, we find out sometimes many years later after the child is finally able emotionally to relate the whole story, that his/her mother knew it was going on all along, sometimes with the wife even helping to facilitate or participate in the abuse, allowing the molestations/rapes to continue for years and years.

These wives almost NEVER admit it. I do not for one minute believe that it was THAT much fun living in this house. That right there, I believe is an outright lie which is indicative of more lies. There's no telling WHAT this woman has covered up, but the kids know. Poor kids.

I just hope eventually they can gather the strength to come forward and tell their whole stories, at least to therapists who can help them salvage their mental health and can help them lead normal lives someday. My heart goes out to all of them and those going back many years ago whose lives Jerry also ruined that we don't even know about; all the others whose lives were shattered and tormented by him, but are still unable to talk about it.

IMO Dottie knew. I can't fathom how she COULDN'T have known.

Hobnob said...

In dottie's letter it is interesting to note she says "he WAS a wonderful father to our 6 children,he TREATED each one as if they were our biological children"
Is he not a wonderful father any more, does he no longer treat them as his own biological children?

It is all about poor poor me in his letter, how it is a nationwide conspiracy to get him, both he and dottie demean their victims.
She should have been charged with aiding and abetting, she knew what was going on and did nothing.
Was her silence bought with money and status i wonder?
A loveless and probably sexless marriage will work if shiny baubles and status are on offer.
He leaves her alone, she stays quiet and all is well in their world.

She perhaps sees his indiscretions akin to having a mistress on the side, some men have mistresses, others a homosexual lover, in his case it was little boys, as long as she has money and status in society she will turn a blind eye.

She is in for a naty shock. she is tainted by the actions of her husband and her own non actions, she is now a persona non grata.
The invitations will dry up, the charities will find another name, she will be left with nothing but baubles and ashes, not even a good name for herself, mrs sandusky will send shivers of revulsion through those who know her.

As far as they are concerened the victims should have been gratedul for what they got and payment was expected and demanded.

brosnanfan said...

When you say to look at "The order of all names", do you mean literal names, or do you mean the order in which people are mentioned? I reread the letter, and the first person mentioned by name is the attorney, and he isn't mentioned until page 2.

I'm probably being entirely too picky, but I am trying to learn SA and I just wanted a bit of clarification.

I'm also trying to learn as much as I can about this case, because our new Youth Pastor is a BIG Penn State fan and he firmly believes in Sandusky's innocence. He told someone that if they had not read every word of the allegations, they had no business commenting and saying Sandusky was guilty, since he was so clearly innocent. I am not too fond of this kid. :/

Seamus O Riley said...

When we say, analytically, "names", we mean people and even pets. For some, pets are more important than people.

All names are highlighted on every analysis.

Seamus O Riley said...

not too picky; wise. If your youth pastor thinks Sandusky is innocent, keep your children away from him. Please. It is too extreme for risk.

Peter

rob said...

'Birds of a feather flock together"

Was he a Second Mile kid?

Amaleen6 said...

I'm using the letters in my criminology class today--I'm going to have students look for different techniques of neutralization of the crimes under neutralization theory. Thanks!

Nicole said...

It's interesting that she never "saw" anything happen. Did she hear something instead?