Monday, October 8, 2012

Statement Analysis: Jerry Sandusky

Jerry Sandusky, in a surprise move on the day before his child sexual abuse sentencing, took to the airwaves Monday to make a statement from prison pleading his innocence.
The former assistant Penn State coach, convicted of 45 counts of abuse, claims the case was based on "false allegations," and he laments that he didn't have "a fair opportunity to prepare for trial."

Here is his denial.  Is it a reliable denial?  "I did not touch a boy in his private parts" would be a reliable denial.  Change any of the elements, or add to them, or subtract from them, and there it is an unreliable denial.  

"In my heart, I know I did not do these alleged disgusting acts," Sandusky said on ComRadio, a student-run station at Penn State.

Note the unreliable denial. 
It is only "in his heart" that he knows.  This shows double weakening:  "in his heart" indicates that he may know differently in his head.  He also says he "knows" he didn't.  When someone says they "know" they didn't do it, they are speaking to knowledge rather than denying the act. 
Next, note "these" shows closeness, and
"disgusting acts" changes the specific allegation.  

 "A young man who was dramatic a veteran accuser, and always sought attention, started everything. He was joined by a well-orchestrated effort of the media, investigators, the system, Penn State, psychologists, civil attorneys and other accusers. They won."

Here, rather than issuing a reliable denial of  3 components, instead gives a conspiracy theory, though no motive is assigned to all those who participated in the conspiracy. 

Blaming a conspiracy is not a denial, it is a diversion. 

Sandusky and at least some of his victims plan to address the judge Tuesday at his sentencing, a proceeding that may last less than two hours, lawyers said after a closed-door meeting Monday to iron out logistics ahead of the hearing.
Sandusky lawyer Joe Amendola said "it's as certain as certain can be" that the former Penn State assistant football coach will speak to Judge John Cleland and assert his innocence before he is sentenced on 45 counts of child sexual abuse.

"What I anticipate he'll say is he's innocent," Amendola said outside the courthouse Monday afternoon.
Sandusky, in his audio statement Monday night, seemed to more directly criticize the victims than he has in the past, continuing to call them "accusers" and suggesting they made up the allegations for personal gain.

"Before you blame me, as others have, look at everything and everybody. ... Think about what happened. Why, and who made it happen? Evaluate the accusers and their families. Realize they didn't come out of isolation," he said. "The accusers were products of many more people and experiences than me. Look at their confidants and their honesty. Think about how easy it was for them to turn on me given the information, attention and potential perks."

Rather than deny, he continues to divert. 

Given the number of charges, the serious nature of his crimes and his age, the 68-year-old Sandusky faces the likelihood of a sentence that will send him to state prison for the rest of his life. Sandusky was convicted in June of abusing 10 boys over 15 years, including some attacks inside Penn State athletic facilities.
Amendola said he did not expect any others to speak on Sandusky's behalf, although friends and family members -- including his wife, Dottie -- have written letters of support. Dottie Sandusky plans to attend the hearing, he said.
"The important thing for us is, it starts the appellate process," Amendola said.
One element of the appeal is expected to be a claim that the defense did not have time to appeal. Sandusky was charged in November, following a lengthy investigation.
Tom Kline, lawyer for a young man who said Sandusky groped him in a shower when he was 12 or 13, said his client plans to read a statement Tuesday.
"He's going to tell the judge how this has affected him, how it's been painful and difficult," Kline said.
Lead prosecutor Joe McGettigan said as many as a half-dozen victims are expected to be heard.
The eight victims who testified against Sandusky at trial described abuse that ranged from grooming and fondling to oral and anal sex. Sandusky did not take the stand, but gave interviews shortly after his arrest in which he declared he was not guilty.


Wendy said...

I was hoping you would do this one. "in my heart" just solidifies my belief Sandusky believes what he did was not wrong. He believes what he did was an act of love and perfectly reasonable.

Light the Way said...

Yep. It's all just a big "conspiracy" to frame Jerry Sandusky as a dirty old man.

The only travesty of justice related to the Sandusky case, is that his day in court didn't happen 30 years earlier.

Bon Voyage, Jerry!
Don't drop the soap.

Lemon said...

Mr. Sandusky begs the blame/attention be cast on everyone and everything but himself. That he made his statement on "ComRadio, a student-run station at Penn State" is telling. Does he believe the students, i.e. "young people", will be more believing of him? Even in his desperate appeal, he focuses his attention on younger people.

He is beyond disturbing.

awhitcomb said...

"Think about how easy it was for them to turn on me"--you didn't expect them to talk, did you, Jer? You'd told them they wouldn't be believed. Guess again.


Lemon said...

Full statement from Jerry Sandusky maintaining innocence on sex-abuse charges

By NBC News staff

Following is the full transcript of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky's statement Monday, which was recorded from his jail cell in Bellefonte, Pa., and aired on the Penn State student radio station:

I'm responding to the worst loss of my life.

First, I looked at myself. Over and over, I asked why? Why didn't we have a fair opportunity to prepare for trial?

Why have so many people suffered as a result of false allegations? What's the purpose? Maybe it will help others. some vulnerable children who could be abused might not be because of all the publicity. That would be nice, but I'm not sure about it. I would cherish the opportunity to become a candle for others, as they have been a light for me.

They can take away my life, they can make me out as a monster, they can treat me as a monster, but they can't take away my heart. In my heart, I know I did not do these alleged disgusting acts.

My wife has been my only sex partner, and that was after marriage. Our love continues.

A young man who was dramatic, a veteran accuser and always sought attention, started everything. He was joined by a well-orchestrated effort of the media, investigators, the system, Penn State, psychologists, civil attorneys and other accusers. They won.

I've wondered what they really won: attention, financial gain, prestige — will all be temporary.

Before you blame me, as others have, look at everything and everybody. Look at the preparation for the trial and the trial. Compare it to others. Think about what happened. Why, and who made it happen?

Evaluate the accusers and their families. Realize they didn't come out of isolation. The accusers were products of many more people and experiences than me. Look at their confidants and their honesty. Think about how easy it was for them to turn on me given the information, attention and potential perks. I never labeled or put down them or their families. I tried and I cared, then asked for the same.

Please realize all came to the Second Mile because of issues. Some of those may remain.

We will continue to fight. We didn't lose the proven facts, evidence, accurate locations and times. Anything can be said. We lost to speculation and stories that were influenced by people who wanted to convict me.

We must fight unfairness and consistency and dishonesty. People need to be portrayed for who they really are.

We've not been complainers. When we couldn't have kids, we adopted. When we didn't have time to prepare for a trial, we still gave it our best. We will fight for another chance.

We have given many second chances, and now we'll ask for one. It will take more than our effort. Justice will have to be more than just a word, fairness more than just a dream. It will take others: somebody apolitical with the courage to listen, to think about the unfairness, to have the guts to stand up and take the road less traveled.

I ask for the strength to handle everything and willingness to surrender only to God, regardless of the outcome.

Nic said...

Off topic

Arrest made in Mexico in 2010 death of David Hartley of Greeley

Anderson Cooper is just getting to the story now...

Lemon said...

After listening to the complete audio, I would make the following changes to the NBC transcript above:

line 04 'as a result of' not "because"

line 20 sounds like 'inconsistency' not "and consistency"

line 24 additional "and" at the end to read "and...and"

LovinTheNW said...

I'm offended the way he blames the victims' for his conviction. He also disparages the victims by stating they came to the Second Mile with 'issues'. I feel so bad for the victims, that Sandusky can still hurt them and has again, rather than to admit his actions.

Sandusky still calls his actions 'alleged'. Wouldn't the proper term be 'convicted'? He can't bring himself to say that word.

Also he tries to garner sympathy for himself by saying that he and Dottie were unable to conceive children.

I'm more interested in what the victims' statements will be tomorrow.

Lis said...

"I would cherish the opportunity to become a candle for others, as they have been a light for me."

Under the circumstances, this imagery is a little disturbing to me. o.O eww

Lis said...

This should be interesting.

MissUnderstood said...


Peter, is there any way you could SA this blogtalkradio? It is with Morgan Ingrams mother. Morgan was found dead in her bed. It was originally rules as natural causes, but later changed to suicide. The mother wants it changed to murder. Morgan was supposedly stalked for 4 month. LE investigated over 50x in 4 months, and found no evidence of a stalker. There are questions being raised about Morgans prescription and non prescription drug use. Possible past suicide attempt(s), possible MBP. There is a very strange relationship between mother and daughter.

The mother is also telling Morgan's story on a blog. The blog is also very inconsistant, she is telling it in present tense and past tense. It's not just a "slip up" here and there, it's almost constant. She is withholding information regarding her relationship with Morgan, as well as anything at ALL negative about Morgan, including her drug use and drinking.

There are so many flags, I can't keep track. It seems easy with so many flags, but it's actually more confusing because it's so long and hard to keep track. I actually tell myself, it's not possible to have that many flags.

MissUnderstood said...

Also, supposedly Morgan was exposed to carbon monoxide poisoning when she was
12, while no one else in the home was exposed (mother, father, or dogs). This is discussed in the interview also. The mother is laughing quite a bit during the interview, especially while talking about her daughters supposed carbon monoxide poisoning.

Lis said...

"Before you blame me, as others have, look at everything and everybody. ..."

He does not tell us not to blame him, just that "before" we do, he wants us to look at...
everything and everybody ?

"Think about what happened. Why, and who made it happen?"

I'm not really sure if Sandusky is talking about the trial or of the abuse itself when he says "what happened." The statement reminds me of father Benedict Greoschel who talked about youngsters "coming after" grown men, "lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.” Maybe Sandusky's twisted mind wants to think the youngsters "made it happen."

"Evaluate the accusers and their families."

"the" accusers, not "my" accusers, he does not want to own them.

Don't evaluate the evidence, don't evaluate me, evaluate the accusers- and their families.

"Realize they didn't come out of isolation," he said. "The accusers were products of many more people and experiences than me."

Is he attempting to share blame? "more people and experiences than me" - he acknowledges he is one of them.

His 'accusers' are now 'products'

"Look at their confidants and their honesty."

Interesting he does not say 'look at their lack of honesty.' He is framing the words "their honesty" - he is acknowledging they are honest.

"Think about how easy it was for them to turn on me given the information, attention and potential perks."

He makes no sense. There was nothing easy about the victims coming forward. However, perhaps it refers to how "easy" it was for them to "turn on him" given all of the "information" that they had- their experiences of his abuse.

Who wants that kind of attention? What "perks"?

"turn on me" - this statement says a lot to me but I can't quite put it in words. It makes it clear he expected their continued support and feels betrayed- he feels they owed him- which works to support the victims allegations. You cannot "turn on" someone you have not been at some point closely involved with, can you?

He can jabber until doomsday, trying to deflect attention away from his guilt, but he cannot say "I didn't do it" !

Lemon said...

"I tried and I cared, then asked for the same." -JS

Here, Jerry Sandusky tells us what he did do: "I tried" and "I cared" and "then (missing pronoun) asked for the same"
What was it he "tried" to do? "Tried" what?
What is his definition of "cared"?
Who did he "care(d)" for? "Cared" about what?
Who did he "ask(ed)" for the same? From whom?

Jerry, what happened? Then what happened?

Anonymous said...

Jerry expected their undivided loyalty to the end and be damned with the consequences. He held it over their head that they were in Second Mile and had "issues" having come to him and his charity for help with these so-called past issues. He made them feel lucky to be there. They were at his mercy and disposal and owed him big time.

He doled out little 'romantic' favors to them never expecting any one of them to turn on him, then more, and more and more turned on him. He had already put out this fire in 1998, now here it is again. What, did he expect in his stupidity that the kids wouldn't grow up, need help, and start talking? Now he is again attempting to hold over their head all he "did" for them and in some cases, their families. 'Just take a look for yourselves people, all I did for them with their family issues and now they dare turn against me'. 'What you need to be looking at is THEIR issues, not mine.' THIS is what's in his heart.

He is disparaging them and all those families who came to Second Mile seeking help as if he individually bought, paid for and owned Second Mile and they were his reward. Imagine his surprise. He just can't believe "in his heart", after all he did for them, that a single one of them would be dishonest enough to go against their word when they had promised him to keep it quiet.

Surprise, Surprise, Jerry. As it turns out you didn't "own" anybody like you thought you did. You already cost Ray Gricar his life when he tried to prosecute you in 1998, KNOWING that you were abusing little boys; then for reasons known only between you and him, he had to close the file and walk away, untimately walking off into the sunset while you went on practicing your evil against these boys for several more years. He had to know in HIS heart that it would one day blow up. In MY heart I believe that the DA's office should ALSO be prosecuted for not taking action against you back in 1998.

Lucky you Jerry, having those delights that you "owned" at your fingertips while Ray Gricar could not live with himself for letting you off the hook to continue your evil. One way or another, you ended Ray Gricar's life either through suicide, murder, or causing him to have to disappear forever when he could no longer live with knowing what he was allowing you to do to these children, but you and Penn State, who KNEW, were too big for him to fight. WHAT were you holding over Ray Gricar's head, Jerry?

NOW you pay Jerry, when you ought to be prosecuted for the disappearance of Ray Gricar in addition to you and Penn State having to take care of these young men for the rest of their unhealthy lives. You got off easy Jerry, so lick your wounds and shut up. NOW it's pay back time.

Anonymous said...

Sandusky is no different than every other pedofile. He truly believes he did nothing wrong. My brother-in-law was arrested in January 2011 for having an affair with a student. His parents disowned my husband because they also found it easier to blame the girl and his wife rather than admit to themselves they had raised a pedofile. Until I saw the mindset up close, I never truly realized how far people will go to justify this type of abuse to themselves, or how far some family members will go to do the same.

OT Did you see a cartel member in Mexico was arrested for David Hartley's murder?

Buff said...

The most telling part of this statement for me is how quickly it goes from "First I looked at myself" to how this is all someone else's fault. He's not asking himself why did he get himself into this mess - his immediate why is "Why didn't we have enough time to prepare for trial?"

Hideous horrible excuse for a human being.

rob said...

It is truly discusting, how he asks 'people' to look at the children's background and their families, and see where they are coming from. This is the same background that he used to set up his elaborate web to lure these very victims into. He never went after children from upscale families, who he would have had access to thru his job and status in the community. Now he wants to blame them because of where they came from. I hope the judge is just like the D.A., and sentences him with everything possible. Send a message, loud and clear. If that happens, I hope the people in the courtroom, stand and applaud when the sentence is read.

rob said...

I read yesterday, that Sandusky has a Masters Degree. Darn, that was hard to believe. He comes off as such a doufus.

rob said...

It was probably divine intervention that they were unable to have children.

Anonymous said...

I am so glad you wrote this. I was going to ask if you would. It makes me sick to my stomach that this "man"can continue to hurt the victims and their families. I truly hope he never gets another trial. I do wonder why his lawyers stay the course when they themselves admitted the evidence was overwhelming. I wish Dottie could be charged too,I believe she knew and let it go on and on. Do you suppose there are those that believe this guy is innocent?

SELLA35 said...

When he says, "turn on me" I cried! That is the real mind of a pedophile at work. They CONDITION their victims to never turn against them. They manipulate their minds.

The other statement that really sticks in my mind is "Before you blame me, as others have, look at everything and everybody. ... Think about what happened. Why, and who made it happen? .........HE ADMITS SOMETHING happened but then he blames his victims for making it happen. Sick man in a sick world in a sick state of mind. And by SICK, I mean disgustingly gross.

Anonymous said...

He got 30-60 years. Amen

emerald said...

I was struck by the apparent incongruity between the phrases "affair with a student" and "pedophile" in your comment. When an abuser molests a child, it is not typically referred to "an affair." I'm not sure of the significance of the unusual wording, but thought that others might have more insight.

emerald said...

30-60 years is not long enough. But its a start

rob said...

This nutjob could easily live to be 98 and released. I don't feel that the judge went far enough.

Dee said...

30-60 years is a life sentence for him, as long as he serves most of it. Prisons are overcrowded. Let's hope he doesn't get too much time off for "good behavior".

awhitcomb said...

Not enough. Not by a long shot.


Lemon said...

His victims have already been living life sentences of pain, heartache, and shame. Their families and those that love them also suffer.
I agree with Amaleen, not enough, not by a long shot.

Light the Way said...

I agree the sentence does NOT fit the crime(s)---it's nowhere NEAR fitting---but, would ANY amount of time given be enough??
Sandusky was allowed to abuse children and ruin their lives with impunity for most of his adult life.

He was allowed to spend the best years of his life, free as a bird.
NOW he'll spend his declining years, as an elderly inmate. Big deal.
He'd likely have spent a good number of his elderly years as a "nursing home inmate" anyway, had he NEVER been prosecuted.
So, what has he really lost?

Granted, it IS "better than nothing"... but, regardless of sentencing length OR whether he ultimately dies in prison, Jerry Sandusky isn't getting the punishment he deserves--not in this life, anyway!

Anonymous said...

I am thinking that Gricar realized that someone had screwed up really bad and Sandusky should have been prosecuted a LONG time ago. Gricar didn't want to get himself into trouble. I think he was planning to retire, so that's why he wanted to wipe his computer hard drives clean so the next person in his office would not see the evidence that he had not taken action against Sandusky. Whether he decided to start a new life, end his life, or was murdered may never be found out.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:55; For reasons we'll never know, Ray Gricar is the one who screwed up in the failure to prosecute Sandusky in 1998. As I understand the course of events, it was Gricar who made the final decision not to prosecute and to close the file on Sandusky.

I read a statement sometime ago where one of the investigators in the DA's office said they felt there was enough evidence to prosecute Sandusky but that Ray Gricar was the one who closed the file; also I believe he said (trying to recall clearly,) that the grand jury had recommended Jerry Sandusky's prosecution, and they were shocked in the DA's office when their DA Ray Gricar chose not to prosecute Sandusky and closed the file.

Yes, Gricar was planning to retire, but he was still a fairly young man, and this decision was made to retire early long after the failed prosecution of Sandusky in 1998. His plans to retire had nothing to do with the Sandusky matter at the time Sandusky was being investigated, but came later.

Further, the district attorneys office already had the evidence of Sandusky's pedohelia that had been presented to them in 1998, which their investigators had been investigating. This is why the investigators were so surprised when their DA made the decision not to prosecute. I wouldn't be surprised if the announcement of his early retirement did have something to do with the Sandusky and Penn State matter by the time he made his decision to retire, trying to escape whatever it was he had held over his head as a threat.

Whatever else Gricar had on his computer and hard drive we'll never know, since it was found totally destroyed. As I understand it, this was Ray's personal computer, not one belonging to the DA's office. I'm sure there was something major that could not be revealed to the public for such drastic steps to be taken to make sure it was never revealed or that Gricar was never able to repeat. Ray Gricar was a doomed man.

I believe the DA's office should be further investigated and prosecuted for their failure to prosecute Jerry Sandusky and Penn State in 1998. One man alone, Ray Gricar, the District Attorney, should not be allowed to make such a drastic decision as this, thereby allowing this man Sandusky to continue on in his sexual abuse of little boys for thirteen more years! It's just not right.

Anonymous said...

Thirty to sixty? Then that means he could be released in approx 20 years or less, with good behavior and other accumulated points.

Sandusky should have been given a minimum of 45 years without parole. That is one year for each of the 45 charges, not nearly enough for the life sentences and years of abuse he metted out on those poor boys repeatedly.

I hope they cut his junk off out in general population and that it takes them 45 whacks to get the job done. For all I care, they could also gouge his eyes out while they're going about it. These old pedophile men even molest from their wheelchair.

Tania Cadogan said...

the minimum he must serves is 30 years minus the 112 days he has already spent behind bars.
He will die in prison since to be paroled he has to admit his guilt and show remorse something he refuses to do. In 30 years time if he is still alive and qualifies for parole he will be asked to admit hi guilt and show remorse, if he doesn't then back he goes till the next parole hearng which could be anything from 2-15 plus years down the line.

Maude's Harold said...

Jerry Sandusky, thinking that "in his heart" he really loves these boys is the hallmark of a NAMBLA member, of which I'm sure Sandusky was affiliated with. The swiftness of "justice" in this case also tells me that many influential people are also associated with Sandusky's ring. They've offered up Sandusky in the hope that will end any other investigations. At this point it seems to have worked. Time will tell. But I am left worrying about all those other people and when/if they will ever face justice in this life.... I pray for their victims.

Anonymous said...

I do tend to use soft language when talking about him to anyone outsise of ny husband and very close friends. I never realizes it until now. We found out about his arrest VIA my husbands co-worker 3 days after his arrest. My husbands family didn't give us the benefit of a heads up before the questions started. It was/is embarrassing. He lives 300 miles from us and it his face was all over the local news for ever a year. The girl was 18 at the time if his arrest. She was 17 when it started. In private I can call him a piece if garbage pedofile, but publicly I want to soften it because my family carries the same last name and admitting to having a pedofile in the family is embarrassing. I did not know I was doing that until you pointed it out. SA is so cool!

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry for the typos. I am on my phone

Anonymous said...

Hobnob, yes, the 112 days would be deducted from the time served; but there are many instances in this country of felons serving only 2/3 of the lessser part of their sentence, plus days added up and reduced for other 'good cause' prison rules of enforcement. I'm not employed in the prison system and don't know the legal guidelines, but I've certainly read, with great dismay, how some got out so quickly as opposed to the original length of time they had been sentenced to serve.

A prisoner doesn't have to 'admit' his crime, apologize for it, and show remorse for a crime he denys that he committed in some instances. Yes, passing muster before the prison board will either go in their favor or against and will ultimately determine whether they are released or not; but the points they've accumulated and other factors also goes in their favor, or lack thereof, that can help to make or break the final decision.

Obviously, some like Charles Mansion or Susan Smith never get released regardless if they are exemplary/model prisoners or not. But even someone like Charles Manson could be released if he shows enough remorse which he never has, but since he didn't actually kill anyone that we know of, but is criminally insane, he could still be released if the prison board says so and it is determined that he is no longer a danger to society. I wouldn't overlook the possibility that Susan Smith might also be released some day should the prison board turn in her favor and she accumulates enough good points and recommendations from professionals and others. Baby killers HAVE occasionally been released in this country.

Ronald Cummings is a good example of the possibility of an early release. When he was originally sentenced to fifteen years, it was determined that he could actually be released after serving only eight to twelve of those years, or less, or if his crafty cockroach lawyer can find a legal loophole to spring him sooner; and depending on the accumulation of 'good days' off for certain points. I don't remember those points now but they do apply to felons in some cases if they are able to accumulate them and have a good attorney going to bat for their release and they have the money to fight it. He will prevail.

The maximum number of years would be the max applied only if they accumulate points against themselves and the prison board recommends they not be released for failure to meet the requirements that show they could be good members of society and are no longer a threat to others. I wouldn't count on Jerry Sandusky being behind bars any longer than his attorneys can spring him, being aware how soft our system is on pedophiles. It is appalling how short some of their sentences become.

Anonymous said...

Maude & Harold, I don't know whether to thank you or not for posting about NAMBLA. I had casually heard of this group previously but never paid them any attention. So I googled NAMBLA. It's name: "North American Man/Boy Love Assn". It is the most sickening, vile, perverse and disgusting organization I've ever heard of or could ever imagine; is alive and well, is vast, and well known to LE agencies all over the country. Some even meet with them.

The term North American Man/Boy Love was coined by a guy named Tom Reeves, a well educated professor, gay activist and former methodist minister, claiming to be a practicing christian. He died earlier this year at age 72, still going strong. I read a lot of the content on their feelings, beliefs and practices of voluntary sex with young boys.

It is HUGE and wildly encompassing in many off-shoot gay/lesbian organizations, includes many gays and is spread among many highly successful men who practice man/boy-love sex. It started and still thrives in areas where many poor and lower middle glass blue colar families and their boys live and take to the streets. These deviate men practice their love/sex on those boys there and in other areas where they have easy access to young boys.

When I first read your post I thought it might be a little far-fetched to imply some national organization might be involved in the Sandusky/Penn State pedophile affair; now I'm not so sure some of them weren't, particularly Sandusky with his vast connections.

There are many, thousands, of these boys being defiled every day of their lives by men seeking boy love. It is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard of. They claim these boys and juveniles 'love' this sex and seek it out themselves, sometimes for money, sometimes not. LE has acquired some of the photograps and porn which is big business, but claims they have a hard time nailing them down as frequently they are photo shopped not to reveal the participants. I cannot believe that something like this exists in this country.

I began to get so sick to my stomach I had to stop reading it and will be feeling sick for the rest of the day. Some evil things I guess I don't need to know.

Anonymous said...

Sandusky quote:

“My wife has been my only sex partner, and that was after marriage.”

This is very telling. You can't call those you sexually subjugate a "partner." So, it's true: Dottie was his only "partner." As in, mutual willingness, mutual desire, an understanding. The boys? They were the ones he RAPED.

emerald said...

Interesting to learn about the public/private wording. Especially since in a blog like this you are at once totally public and yet anonymous. It makes me wonder how public/private wording affects other aspects of statement analysis and how often we all choose different words in different settings.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, "unable"---especially when the man doesn't go anywhere near the woman! ;-)

Anonymous said...

30 before possibility of parole.

MsGvious said...

"I would cherish the opportunity to become a candle for others, as they have been a light for me."

Peter, thanks for your blog. I'm learning so much.

You've said lights/doors/windows/blankets are red-flagged in possible sexual abuse cases.
Would Sandusky's language in above-mentioned sentence be an example?
Or would 'lights' need to be mentioned in context of the person's account of 'what happened, what happened next?'