"Perfect Sense": The Full "Conventional Wisdom" Narrative of the PSU "Scandal" (Part 3 of 3)

When Joe Paterno’s press conference is cancelled (it was incorrectly reported at the time that Spanier cancelled it, but there seems to be little significance to the fact that this was actually done by ardent Paterno-critic John Surma), the media correctly perceives this as a sign that Penn State is implicating Paterno in wrong-doing.  Obviously if Penn State is saying that Paterno did wrong then there can be no other remotely logical interpretation of that action than to conclude that he must have done something really terrible (the fact that he is praised three days earlier in the newspaper of record by an attorney general source must have just be an aberration not worthy of much attention).

Feeling enormous media pressure and sensing his father is in big trouble, Scott Paterno decides to shatter the cover-up (that’s the only explanation, right?) and throws Jerry under the bus by saying a prayer for the "damaged" “victims,” on television, on the Paterno front lawn. There is now no longer even a hint of worry in the media that they might be rushing to judgment against Sandusky, because clearly the Paternos would know if he was innocent and they would defend him if he was. This is an excellent assessment by the news media because, much like with themselves, there is no chance that Scott Paterno could be mistaken, or simply playing a really bad/desperate strategic political game.

Once the media gets what they want and they pressure Penn State into firing Spanier and Paterno (there could never have been any other political reasons why those on the PSU-BOT would have wanted either of them gone), this is seen as an obvious guilty plea on behalf of everyone involved. After all, there is just simply no other reason Penn State would cave so quickly with such dramatic action unless they knew they were all guilty of something really awful. This is especially true when the person announcing the decision, John Surma, had often told Spanier he wanted Paterno fired and also had a brother who once lived with Jerry Sandusky (so he had no personal agenda or any reason to fear the media turning on him or the huge company he heads).

As would become clear as the story unfolded, the members of the PSU-BOT were all very smart, well-informed, courageous and trustworthy individuals. Also, having a conference call (with Paterno's biggest supporter on a cell phone in an airport) led by the governor whose AG office just filed the charges, with no debate, in the middle of media firestorm with a nationally-televised home football game just days away, is obviously a set of circumstances from which nothing ill-considered could possibly happen.

Paterno, after being denied a hearing, is informed of his firing on a cell phone (just as any God would be). Just as any good Catholic would if they had been publicly humiliated by having their cover-up of a pedophile blown up, Paterno smiles and waves at the crowd of cheering students outside his house, all while telling them to go home and study.

On the same day in which these decisions are made, Allan Myers, the person who claims (as does his attorney Andrew Shubin, as well as Jerry and Dottie Sandusky) that he is the person Mike McQueary saw in the shower with Jerry Sandusky back in 2002 (later to be determined 2001) comes into the office of Sandusky’s defense attorney with his mother. His statement to an FBI-trained former police officer is a very strong denial that anything sexual between him and Sandusky ever happened. He even appears to give important details of the episode which were not publicly known at that time.

However, since we all “know” that there is no way that McQueary would say something untrue or that Penn State would fire a legend and a respected school president if he had, Myers must be lying. It is just far more likely that he is part of a very elaborate set up on the part of Jerry and Dottie Sandusky and that the “real” boy in the shower that night decided to never come forward (and that Jerry and Allan knew he wouldn’t come forward) because he just didn’t care about obtaining justice for his rape, or having someone else pretend to be him for millions of dollars.

That makes perfect sense, right? We know it does because Sara Ganim told us it did and the rest of the media rightly decided to never even look into it.

In the aftermath of the Paterno firing, Penn State immediately starts to beg the world for forgiveness. They hold a massive candle-light vigil on campus for the “victims” and say an extended prayer for them just before the kickoff of their home game that Saturday in front of a huge national television audience. This is clearly a sign that the entire State College community must have always suspected Sandusky was a child molester and is only now fully accepting/admitting that obvious reality. We know this because had anyone been remotely innocent, the "football culture" at Penn State would have demanded that they be vigorously defended.

These are events which are desperately needed to feed the media monster demanding instant justice and contrition. They also make grieving people feel better about themselves. The fact that actual crimes have not yet been close to proven is irrelevant. We know they eventually will be proven and this kind of activity could never influence a judge or a jury in any way, or how they might perceive the accusers and the accused once a trial happens.

And even if it does, so what?! He was showering with boys and caused Joe Paterno to be fired! Who cares if he gets a fair trial?! We know he is guilty! Where are the pitchforks?!

Soon after the initial media explosion, Joe Amendola appears on NBC with Bob Costas. In a fit of apparent insanity (obvious because the only other explanation is that he actually thinks his client is totally innocent and doesn’t reason to fear him answering questions), Amendola allows Costas to conduct a totally impromptu and completely unprepared for interview on the phone.

While Sandusky is given the strong impression that the interview will only be a couple of questions (which is all any even remotely sane attorney would have allowed so as not to destroy the allure of providing another news outlet at another time with the exclusive sit-down interview, which would certainly have been done on camera), this should not diminish how clearly his answers to Costas prove his guilt.

After all, when asked whether he was sexually attracted to young boys, Sandusky actually thinks about the question and even repeats it before clearly stating that he was not! This makes it obvious that he MUST really be attracted to boys because every one knows that someone who has been fighting to hide his attraction to boys for at least four decades would be totally flummoxed and unprepared as to how to answer that question. This dead give away (dragged out of him via one simple question while on the phone) of his true pedophilic self is also perfectly consistent with the “criminal mastermind” narrative which has been created by the prosecution, the media, and Jim Clemente.

We now know that soon after the disastrous Costas interview that elements of the PSU- BOT, the Louis Freeh group, and the NCAA are already collaborating on how Penn State is going to be investigated and punished for their obvious transgressions. The fact that the emails show this occurred at a time period before anyone had ever testified publicly or been cross-examined and when the key incident was thought to have occurred in 2002 (as opposed to 2001), should be seen as a sign of the remarkable wisdom, competence, and efficiency of these groups to already be able to accurately figure out exactly where it is all going to lead.

Just before Joe Paterno dies, he makes a request that the truth of this whole matter be found. What seems strange about this statement is that, at this time, he is not being accused of a full “cover-up” and neither really is “Penn State.” He has no idea what Louis Freeh is going to conclude in his report because he was never even interviewed for it.

While logic might dictate that this statement is an indication that he had doubts about the Sandusky narrative (why else would he be clearly indicating that the “truth” had yet to be found?), it seems more likely that Paterno, having taken part in a cover-up, anticipated the future allegations against him and wisely planted that pre-death statement as a preemptive strike against them. That’s just what Gods do.

These Penn Staters were really good at this cover-up stuff, its just too bad for them that they didn’t realize they shouldn’t use work email owned by a state institution.

After Paterno’s death, Tim Curley releases a statement praising Paterno for his “honor and integrity.” Now, on the surface, this may seem odd for someone who was apparently forced by Paterno to engage in a cover-up of child molestation which destroyed his career, reputation and, possibly, life. However, one must keep in mind Paterno’s God-like stature and, even though he was dead and disgraced, Curley was simply still just terrified of him and Sue (and was too stupid to realize that such a statement would hinder his possible future legal defense of blaming it all on the dead guy).

Or, perhaps as Sandusky prosecutor Frank Fina will later say, maybe Paterno (the God of State College) just simply wasn’t part of the cover-up at all. The media doesn’t really need to pick a lane on this because the details don’t really matter when the evidence is so obviously “devastating.” Fina could still be wrong about this remarkably important point and it not cast any doubt on the rest of his narrative or conclusions. Complex math equations often conclude with the right answer even though one of the first numbers is computed incorrectly.

It also makes perfect sense that Penn State could engage in a decade-plus long cover-up related directly to football and for Joe Paterno not be involved. Right?

Sandusky’s trial proceeds at record speed. This is obviously because the evidence against him and the desire for justice is just so overwhelming that there is no need for any sort of unnecessary delays. Bolstered by two new “victims” who come forward after his arrest (culled as the cream of the crop from a couple of dozen who coincidentally come forward after it is reported that Penn State will be on the hook for up to $100 million), the prosecution gets their trial just seven months after the indictments and just four months after providing the defense with their first massive batch of discovery.

The trial begins with Matt Sandusky sitting next to Dottie in the courtroom (since we will later find out from Matt that Dottie “knew” Jerry had molested him, this decision shows just what an insane sociopath Dottie really is). At this point Matt has already testified in the grand jury on his adopted father’s behalf, strongly supported him publicly, and fought in court against his ex-wife for his kids to see Jerry after his arrest.

However, despite having dealt with this issue extensively for an extended amount of time, when Matt sees the first witness testify it hits him like a lighting bolt that he too had been abused by Jerry about twenty years ago (he would later tell the documentary film “Happy Valley” that he knew before this point that he was a “liar” and a “coward,” but that just must have been an incorrect repressed memory retrieved from his therapy sessions). Matt’s entire adopted family claims that he came home that day and declared that he could get up on the stand and “lie” just like Victim 4, and one member of the family says Matt tried to convince them to join him in his victim scam, but they are not credible because their father is obviously a monster pedophile and the news media rightfully ignores their statements condemning Matt.

The trial goes incredibly fast (which is always a good sign that justice is being done) and somehow takes only two weeks. The accidental tape of investigators conspiring with Victim 4’s lawyer to lie to the accuser in order to get him to claim he had sex with Sandusky is put in its proper insignificant context by the news media and the judge. The news media is, after all, understandably concerned with making sure the “victims” who have endured so much already are not forced to experience any more pain and suffering.

The same goes to the prosecution’s stipulation that Sara Ganim contacted the mother of Victim 6 and urged her to find more accusers. We know that Ganim is a great reporter (the Pulitzer Prize people told us so), so this was obviously some sort of misunderstanding, or perhaps just the type of thing one must do in a case like this where justice is so incredibly tough to come by.

No harm, no foul. After all, the evidence is so completely overwhelming!

Allan Myers, having retained attorney Andrew Shubin, (the same lawyer Matt Sandusky will soon go to, which is surely a coincidence since Jerry, the criminal mastermind, had slipped up just before the trial and told him Allan had become a “victim”), does not make an appearance at the trial, but the media rightly never bothers with even wondering where the McQueary victim is. Thankfully, since there are no cameras in the courtroom, the news media, always a fair arbiter of what is right and just, is able to make sure that the public is not confused by these types of developments. 

In the middle of the trial Matt asks Dottie to babysit for his kids (an act which was surely out of desperation since he now says Dottie is a “bad person” who was an accomplice in his molestation) and goes to the police to finally say that he was abused by Jerry. He tells them of only very mild abuse, but that must be simply because the really horrible memories are still being “repressed” (Since that isn’t actually a real thing, he was probably just too embarrassed to tell the police the truth. Telling Oprah Winfrey on national TV is a venue which will prove to be obviously much easier, though, oddly, he completely blows his answer to her unfair question, “how do we know you are telling the truth?”).

A tape of Matt's story to police gets leaked to NBC. Joe Amendola is nearly positive that it was his co-counsel Karl Rominger (who no longer has a law license) who leaked the tape to females at NBC with whom he was partying. Of course, no one should conclude from any of this that Sandusky's defense may have suffered significantly from ineffective counsel. After all, the evidence against him is just so overwhelming.

Matt Sandusky's dramatic flip gets widely reported in the media as if Matt is an actual verified victim (why would a troubled adopted son of a guy clearly going to prison possibly lie?). Even though the jury is not sequestered, there is no chance that any of the jurors heard about this “bombshell” and that it impacted their perceptions of the case.

Remember, jurors, much like pedophiles, are magic! (So magical that one of them can admit beforehand that they are too close to the McQueary family to be objective about Mike and, thanks to a brilliant decision by Jerry Sandusky the criminal mastermind, still be kept on the jury!)

Because of Matt “flipping,” Joe Amendola decides to not have Sandusky testify. This could only be because he believed that Matt was a real victim and was afraid of him being able to testify if Jerry did (as opposed to the silly idea that they thought they had created reasonable doubt and didn’t want to give the prosecution the chance to put the guy who they saw sit next to Jerry’s wife take the stand against him).

During jury deliberations, Amendola makes several strange statements which indicate that he thinks his client is going to be convicted. This is clearly an indication that the case against Sandusky is airtight (as opposed to a result of Joe being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the injustice he realized was going to ensue after the jury’s second question during deliberations made it clear to him that they were going to convict).

As the guilty verdicts (which don’t include the infamous McQueary “rape” charge, a fact that the media rightfully ignores) are announced, at least hundreds of loudly cheering spectators join the media mob outside the courthouse in welcoming the news. Historically, this is almost always a sign that the jury felt free to come to whatever verdict the facts led them to, and that justice has been done (just research the Salem Witch Trials).

Remarkably, less than a month later, Louis Freeh releases his report on what allegedly happened at Penn State with regard to the Sandusky scandal. This incredibly short amount of time (barely enough to type up and compile all of the materials) is indicative of the incredible proficiency of the Freeh group and not at all a sign that they had come to their conclusions well before the central event of the entire story had been adjudicated. Emails between the Freeh group and the Sandusky prosecution will later show that they were in contact with, and rooting for, each other, so everything was totally cool there.

Louis Freeh, who has an amazing record of being able to only take on investigations where the evidence leads him, coincidentally, to the exact conclusions that his employer wants, holds a press conference (on the slowest sports news day of the year) less than an hour after the report itself is available online. The press doesn’t see not being able to possibly read even a significant portion of it by then as any sort of a problem. After all, they never read anything anyway. Details aren’t important. Only the narrative is. Remember, media members are super smart and never wrong, especially when what they are saying coincides with their self interest.

The Freeh Report shows the same remarkable investigative instincts which served Freeh so well in the Richard Jewell Olympic Bombing case. He is able to crack the story without speaking to ANY of its primary characters. His investigation never interviews, among others: Jerry or Dottie Sandusky, Joe Amendola, Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Allan Myers, or Mike McQueary (who Freeh refrains from speaking to at the request of the prosecution, which is totally not a conflict of interest and probably why he mistakenly referred to him as “McQuade” at the press conference). Similarly, he speaks to Graham Spanier only days before the report is issued and barely mentions him in it.

This is clearly the best way to get to the heart of any story because those who actually lived it are not able to provide any legitimate insights, especially when it comes to interpreting emails they wrote or received.

Freeh’s conclusion that the crimes of Sandusky were concealed by on an overt cover-up on the part of Penn State and Joe Paterno (even though the Sandusky prosecutor will later directly contradict this notion, probably because he doesn’t know what he is talking about, though that in no way should reflect on the credibility of the Sandusky prosecution) is thoroughly vetted for several seconds by the news media before being fully embraced. Freeh never does any interviews about his report, because it is almost always the best policy to let a lone press conference (where the questioners haven’t read the report) speak for itself, even when your contract stipulates that you submit to an interview. 

Penn State does not fight back against the report at all. In fact, the PSU BOT seems to embrace its conclusions immediately. The only way to properly interpret this is that the report must be true. There can not possibly be any reason why PSU BOT members would want Joe Paterno or Penn State to be seen as guilty of something they didn’t do (It’s not like they had just fired the two most prominent people at their school for possibly no reason and badly needed a justification of that action to placate an angry mob of "JoeBots").

So when Penn State decides to take down the Paterno statue the day before the NCAA is scheduled to weigh in on the controversy, this is clearly as a result of people who knew Paterno best simply admitting the obvious reality that those vague emails a dead man didn’t even write were proof that he covered up for a pedophile. The fact that it was ordered by an obviously frightened Rodney Erickson who was totally in over his head and fearful that he might get accused in the cover-up (since he had signed Sandusky’s seemingly shady retirement package), is purely coincidental.

Then the NCAA, less than two weeks after Freeh’s Report is released, comes down incredibly hard on Penn State with unprecedented sanctions. Included is the stripping of 111 wins from Joe Paterno’s career record. The fact that it appears that some key NCAA people never even read the Freeh Report and that Mark Emmert has continually mistakenly claimed that Paterno was not specifically punished by the sanctions, should in no way tarnish the credibility of those sanctions.

Neither should the reality that the NCAA would later chose to rescind all of the sanctions half way through the probationary period (including Joe Paterno’s win record), or that emails and deposition testimony indicating that the threat of a Death Penalty against Penn State was found to a complete bluff. These are simply indications of either how good a job Penn State has done to clean up the Paterno/Sandusky mess, or how incompetent (or wise) the NCAA is, depending on the day of the week and which narrative any particular media member prefers.

Remember, rescinding an historic punishment less than three years after it is issued, and before three key figures in the case are even tried, is totally based a legal technicality and has nothing to do with innocence or exoneration. If those three administrators are later found guilty that won’t reflect poorly on the NCAA at all, so the likelihood of that must not have entered into the settlement equation. 

At this point, with the cover-up blown apart and those involved all totally disgraced and utterly powerless, one might expect that the floodgates will open for people and evidence to come quickly flow forward to further substantiate this narrative. After all, that is what happened after Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez were exposed, and they were still at least rich and famous (as opposed to dead or in prison like Paterno and Sandusky).

Curiously, nothing like this happens. Curley and Schultz don’t flip on each other, or on Spanier (who is, in a weird coincidence, finally indicted just days before an election for a new attorney general, but months after Sara Ganim mistakenly/mysteriously informs him that he is going to be charged). Not one other person comes forward, despite a huge incentive to, and claims to have knowledge of this cover-up.

Mike McQueary sues Penn State, but doesn’t make any mention of being forced to be part of a cover-up. No one at The Second Mile charity is charged or even really accused with anything. Former US Attorney General Dick Thornburgh concludes that the Freeh Report’s assessments are not valid. Bob Costas changes his mind about them as well, while Freeh and Mark Emmert both dodge an interview with Costas (which the rest of the news media totally ignores, probably because Costas is not a big enough deal). Hall of Famer Franco Harris, while confronting him directly, exposes NCAA president Mark Emmert as being completely clueless about the facts of the case.

But it should be noted that these developments are not significant to the overall narrative of the story. We know this because the New York Times has not said that they were, and is some cases never even reported on them, which means, effectively, that they never actually happened (though the Times has, remarkably, referred to the case against Spanier as very possibly "fatally flawed," but that was likely an editing error).   

As for Sandusky, for some strange reason, no one else in his family, against their self interest, deserts him after this conviction (one of his adopted sons even gets a “Sandusky Forever” tattoo in response to Matt temporarily changing his name before realizing that Matt Davidson doesn't get headlines). Dottie Sandusky, even though her life would be far better where people don’t know who she is, remains in State College and drives seven hours a week to see Jerry in prison (even though she “knows” he is guilty and he can do nothing for her). Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, also very much against his self interest, still insists Jerry is innocent. Many of Jerry’s friends who had previously deserted him, slowly and tentatively begin to change their minds about his guilt.

Thus, once again, is the incredible power of the pedophile to fool people, even while in a maximum security prison and 100% of the media industrial complex completely against him. Remember, it's magic!

Sandusky does a prison interview with a little-known documentary filmmaker who is convinced he is guilty but that Paterno is not. Scott Paterno, without knowing anything at all about the content, intent, or dissemination outlet for the interview, calls the filmmaker in a rage and berates him for 15 minutes in a profanity-laced tirade without asking any him legitimate questions before hanging up on him.

This reaction is perfectly consistent with someone who really wants to find out what actually happened in all of this (as his father said he wanted) and not a person who only has a preconceived narrative which he is willing to put his stamp of approval on because of purely political and selfish considerations. It also doesn't suggest at all a fear that perhaps there is a lot more to the Sandusky story than he realized back when he effectively declared Jerry guilty in the days before Joe Paterno was fired. 

As for the interview itself, contrary to the prosecution theory, Sandusky doesn’t confess (not even when the filmmaker uses Jim Clemente’s “guaranteed” formula for confession-creation after Sandusky has been in solitary confinement, with little sleep, in a maximum security prison). Nor does he, as urged by his attorney to do so if true, give any indication that there was a cover-up. Most remarkably, against perhaps the longest odds of any inmate in American history (assuming he is guilty) he remains incredibly optimistic that he will one day be exonerated.

This must simply be because the guy who coached successfully with Joe Paterno for 30 years, while also creating a massive charity, is completely insane.

Weirdly, in the three-and-a-half hour interview, Sandusky tells a story which actually makes sense and where most of it is eventually verified with not one clear lie being found. Even after the filmmaker who did the interview then calls him a pedophile on national television in a high-profile interview with Matt Lauer, Sandusky does, very much against his self interest if guilty, a second interview with this same person, this time along his wife. Again, Sandusky isn’t caught in any inconsistencies and, in a remarkable bit of acting, is brought to tears as he recalls the first moment he thought that he might be in real trouble: the reading of the verdicts (Dottie, also a great actress, simultaneously gives the same answer with tears streaming down her face).

Remember, even though Jim Clemente wasn’t right about an imminent confession (or about the George Zimmerman, Amanda Knox, or Michael Jackson verdicts), he still must be correct about Sandusky being in the top 1% of all pedophiles. We know this because he apparently once worked for the FBI and has consulted on a popular television series (as well as claimed to be a CSA victim and was paid by Scott Paterno, all of which removes any bias on the topic which he might have).

The filmmaker, profoundly against his own self interest, goes on the Today Show and CNN a second time, this time along with Dottie Sandusky, to declare that he now thinks (thanks to what he claims is having a lot more information) Sandusky is innocent. Dottie gets through three major media interviews (the first she has ever done in her life), with no restrictions and against clearly adversarial interviewers, and yet somehow is not remotely exposed as a liar or delusional, which is why the media rightfully tries to ignore this development. Later, she writes an op-ed piece (which is heavily edited and proceeded with a disclaimer that it is the paper’s official position to not allowing any questioning of the Sandusky verdicts, which is obviously a policy designed to allow for only the truth to be told) in the paper which broke the whole story, attacking a documentary on the scandal and her son Matt’s credibility.

Perhaps Dottie should also be added to Jim Clemente’s All-Pro pedophile team!

An exhaustive investigation into the original investigation by the new attorney general of Pennsylvania Kathleen Kane finds that there was no evidence that corruption caused the extraordinary delay in charges being filed against Sandusky. However, there is no apparently no reason to conclude that this means that a simple lack of evidence was the real reason for the delay. We know this because no one in the media has even speculated that this could be true and that would just be too big of a story for them to possibly miss.

The investigation delay just happened. Period. There is no need to understand why. Now please go away and move along.

Speaking of delays, the trial for the Penn State administrators still has not come close to happening over three years after the original indictments. This is obviously because there hasn’t been enough time for any of them to flip on the other. Also, the fact that Sandusky’s trial and all of his appeals are already long over is an unfair and irrelevant comparison which should never be mentioned in the respectable media.

As for the victims, every single one of them (including Matt Sandusky and Allan Myers) either accepts a huge settlement from Penn State, or sues them. Weirdly, Victim 6 (who Sandusky claimed has a mother who was out for money from the start) has yet to accept a settlement because they are asking for a far higher dollar amount than the others. Neither does Victim 9, who most court observers agreed was easily the least credible accuser on the stand (and has now added to his story a lunch date with Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky together well after Jerry retired, which never actually happened, but the important part is that a victim of CSA feels like it happened).

The fact that not one of the victims ever actually testified that they were assaulted and that Penn State was remotely aware of them, is totally irrelevant to whether Penn State should be paying any of the victims without even a trial. The media said that Penn State is to blame and there can be no harm in them taking immediate financial responsibility. After all, since no one really knows exactly where the money is coming from, that means it's effectively free. And having all the victims paid off without trials couldn't possibly harm the cause of truth because we already know exactly what happened here. Just look at that number of (anonymous and now rich) victims!

The vast majority of those victims do no interviews at all. Matt Sandusky ends up doing by far the most media and even stars in a documentary film where he tells one of at least four distinct versions of his story. However, he ignores an offer of $10,000 to his foundation if he does an interview with John Ziegler (the “lunatic” documentary filmmaker) as well as an offer to appear with his mother Dottie in a joint major media interview. This, however, should not reflect on his credibility because they are terrible people who might somehow make him somehow look bad, even though the truth is clearly not on their side.

After an incredible amount of positive and free publicity, Matt’s foundation for sex abuse victims runs a Tee-shirt fund-raising campaign with a modest goal of selling 500 shirts. According to their website, with just days left in the drive, a total of six people purchased the Tee-shirt. However, this is not an indication that people don’t see Matt as credible, but rather that he is a victim of the nefarious Penn State football culture.

As for the accusers who actually testified to their abuse, remarkably only one ever speaks publicly (this clearly shows that their only goal was justice and not fame, which, as everyone knows, is the value system of most young people these days). Aaron Fisher writes a book (co-authored by his therapist), does one major interview with ABC’s 20/20, does some public speaking (away from Pennsylvania) and then mostly goes away to determine, according to his Facebook page, which new fancy automobiles he should buy.

The “lunatic” filmmaker does interviews with both of the boys who, late in the grand jury investigation, were almost killed in a car accident where Fisher was the driver of the car. One of the boys, Brian Mauch (as well as his father), strongly dispute Aaron’s trial testimony indicating that he thought his bed wetting was related to his abuse by Sandusky. They both say that they knew he had wet the bed at their house before Fisher ever met Sandusky and tried to contact the authorities to alert them to this reality. Brian also insists that he is 100% sure Fisher, who he had witnessed with Sandusky, is lying about being abused by him and says that Fisher's friends feel similarly.

One of the filmmaker’s strongest supporters, Layton Harman, engages Fisher in a Facebook conversation about these revelations. As you read them in the order in which they took place, please don’t misinterpret Fisher dodging seemingly simple questions, his extreme lack of specific memory consistent with his memories having been created by his therapist, his defense that the case “is over” and that therefore somehow none of this matters, and his almost immediate fear of serious questioning which causes him to withdraw after mysteriously saying to Harman, “I know what you are trying to do, I'm not stupid.”

These are all reactions which can not be properly interpreted by a non “expert,” and your human experiences are irrelevant when it comes to making any conclusions about the credibility of a victim of CSA. Only people whose careers are dependent on victims never being perceived as lacking credibility are allowed to evaluate such things.

So, in that light, this interaction is presented for purposes of curiosity only:

Regardless of what you think of Fisher (who, coincidentally, changed his Facebook name just after this exchange), nothing should make you question the heart of the Penn State/Sandusky narrative. Even though he was the only real victim for the first two years of the investigation (and the only one to claim “sex” before the news of the grand jury investigation broke locally) and his claims were obviously used to "incentivize" others, including Mike McQueary, to come forward, he could be lying and it just wouldn’t have any impact on the credibility of the rest of the case. There is just no reason for any of those others to have said something which is not true. It's not as if any of them (or their lawyers) could have predicted that there would be millions of dollars involved after it gets reported in the paper that a guy associated with two massive organizations is in the midst of a grand jury investigation. Right?

The idea that anyone could believe that Sandusky might not be a monster or that Penn State did not enable his crimes is simply proof of how strong and corrosive the football “culture’ at Penn State still is and also just how good at this the Paternos and the Sanduskys are at this sort of thing. Just because Penn Staters have far more knowledge about this case than anyone else (because they actually care about it) is in no way an indication that their opinions are valid. We know this this is false because ESPN's Keith Olbermann has said that Penn Staters have no credibility because they are blinded by their football lust. Keith Olbermann would never say something which wasn't based in truth.

It is obvious that the only people who are truly credible on this matter are not the people who know the most about it, but rather those who got paid millions of dollars (victims, moms, lawyers, therapists, Louis Freeh, etc) or who got lots of positive attention (prosecutors, investigators, media members, key people at the NCAA and PSU BOT, etc) for their involvement in the case. This is usually a good rule by which to judge such things. It is also generally a good sign that the truth has prevailed when no disagreement is allowed in the media and when the part of the case on which everything else is based (here, the testimony of the accusers) receives by far the least amount of scrutiny. 

As you can obviously see, the narrative which has been clearly laid out here makes perfect sense and hopefully answers any questions you may have about what really happened in this story. It is really all quite simple and surely a far more sensible scenario than the alternative.

There is just no way that investigators, therapists and lawyers could convince financially-challenged young men from horrible backgrounds to tell false stories which got them enormous praise, no criticism/scrutiny, and more money than they ever dreamed of. 

And if that ever did happen, it is just not possible that those in a liberal academic institution would panic, rush to judgment, fear being seen as politically incorrect, and then spend tons of other people’s money to protect their own reputations.

And if that ever did happen, the lawyer son of the legend who said he wanted the truth to be known wouldn't decide to embrace that narrative because he was obsessed with protecting a story he prematurely bought into and placating the media in a ill-conceived gambit designed for a pardon.

And if that somehow ever did happen, the news media would surely expose that reality because they would care deeply about the truth and wouldn’t fear breaking away from the false narrative that the rest of their pack had embraced so strongly.

And even if that ever somehow didn’t happen, the court system would save the day because lawyers, witnesses, judges and juries are all immune from public/media pressure and communal misperceptions.

Right?