By Frank Parlato
Before we provide the newly discovered evidence, and for those who are unfamiliar with the Sandusky case, here is a brief overview:
According to his 2012 conviction, former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky molested numerous boys over 30 years. None of these accusers made a contemporaneous report of abuse.
The criminal case began in November 2008 with 14-year-old Aaron Fisher, when Fisher asked his mother how to look someone up on a sex offender website. When questioned, he initially denied any sexual abuse. After his mother alerted his high school of her suspicion that something inappropriate had occurred, Fisher met with school officials and police and denied any genital touching or oral sex.
The First Accuser: Aaron Fisher’s Evolving Testimony
Fisher was referred to psychotherapist Mike Gillum, who operated on the belief that Fisher had repressed memories of abuse. Gillum described his method as “peeling back the layers of an onion” to uncover trauma. During therapy, Gillum told Fisher he believed “something terrible happened” and that Sandusky fit a “predator profile.”
Over the course of therapy, Fisher’s account eventually escalated into allegations of fondling, kissing, and finally, forced mutual oral sex. Fisher and Gillum later wrote a book, Silent No More, in which they described this process in terms of “dissociation” and “compartmentalizing” of memories. Gillum stated it took six months of therapy before Fisher directly alleged oral sex.
The case was referred to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office in March 2009. Fisher testified before two grand juries. His first appearance was emotional; he initially denied he had oral sex with Sandusky before changing his answer. The grand jury declined to indict Sandusky. At a second grand jury appearance, Fisher’s testimony ended with him collapsing in front of the jurors.
A Key Witness Emerges: Mike McQueary’s Shower Account
The investigation into Jerry Sandusky stalled for nearly two years, with only Fisher as an accuser, then a tip in November 2010 about a rumored witness: Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary.
According to the grand jury presentment filed in November 2011, McQueary testified that he witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in a Penn State campus shower on March 1, 2002.
After the presentment was published, McQueary emailed prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach, stating he could not be “1,000 percent sure” it was sodomy. Eshbach replied that she knew “a lot of this stuff is incorrect” but advised him not to respond.
The individual identified as the boy in the shower, Allan Myers, denied that any abuse had occurred. In a sworn statement to Sandusky’s defense, Myers said the incident was harmless horseplay and that “nothing occurred that night in the shower.”
On the night of the incident, McQueary reportedly told his father and a family friend, Dr Jonathan Dranov, that he had not witnessed a sex act, leading them to conclude abuse was unlikely.
The prosecutors later changed the date of the alleged incident to February 9, 2001, for the trial. (That date became the point after which Penn State was presumed to have been on notice and therefore culpable for any alleged misconduct. Consequently, future Penn State payouts were significantly enhanced if the alleged abuse occurred after February 9, 2001.)
The Investigation Expands: Finding More Accusers
McQueary’s December 2010 shower account reignited the investigation.
Acting Attorney General Linda Kelly expanded resources to find additional accusers.
Investigators interviewed hundreds of Second Mile alumni, while media coverage—spurred by local reporter Sara Ganim’s reporting, with headlines such as “Former Coach Jerry Sandusky Used Charity to Molest Kids”—accelerated public scrutiny. It became clear that Penn State was ready to help victims of Sandusky. One report claimed that Penn State would likely pay out $100 million to victims who came forward.
By September, the Attorney General’s grand jury presentment included six accusers and Mike McQueary’s witness account.
State Police arrested Sandusky on November 5, 2011.
The Case of Victim 7: Dustin Struble’s Changing Story
Among the new victims, police found Dustin Struble, identified as “Victim 7.”
Struble first spoke with police in February 2011. Initial notes from the interview indicate he described Sandusky’s behavior as non-sexual, praising The Second Mile program and denying any inappropriate activity.
Shortly after, Struble began psychotherapy. By his trial testimony in June 2012, he alleged naked bear hugs, body-to-body contact in showers, and genital touching. Under cross-examination, Struble stated that these details emerged during therapy. He also testified that he and another accuser, Zachary Konstas, had discussed whether therapy was helping them “remember more.”
Michal Kajak’s Evolving Account
Another of the accusers was Michal Kajak, also known as Victim 5.
Initially, he described a single, non-penetrative incident in a sauna at Penn State around 1998. Later, his account expanded to include a second shower and more explicit touching. He drew a diagram of the shower room.
By the time of the 2012 trial, Kajak had changed the date of the alleged incident to 2001 (after the alleged McQueary incident) and testified to a more detailed account of forced contact in the sauna.
Because his timeline had moved forward, Kajak also had to change the location of the shower incident from the old locker room, which had closed by 2001, to the new locker room. However, he failed to account for the fact that the new locker room did not have a sauna, which is where he claimed he was molested.
Jason Simcisko’s Recollected Memories
Jason Simcisko, a former participant in Sandusky’s charity, initially told police in July 2011 that Jerry Sandusky had never abused him and told police, “I hope he is found not guilty.”
After retaining attorney Andrew Shubin, Simcisko’s story changed. In grand jury testimony a month later, he alleged naked “bear hugs” in showers and genital touching over clothing.
By the time of the trial, Simcisco added Sandusky washing his buttocks and kissing. Under cross-examination, Simcisko stated these memories emerged after he “thought about it more” and tried to overcome having “blocked” them, and acknowledged multiple meetings with his civil lawyer to prepare.
Brett Houtz and the Interrogation Strategy
Brett Swisher-Houtz, Victim 4, a former participant in Sandusky’s charity, had a relationship that began in the mid-1990s. After media reports of the investigation in March 2011, Houtz retained an attorney, and state police interviewed him in April 2011.
A recording from a break in that interview captured his attorney and a trooper discussing strategies to elicit a fuller account, including falsely telling Houtz that nine other men had alleged intercourse. When the interview resumed, the trooper suggested a “progression” of abuse, after which Houtz provided more graphic details.
Houtz’s account expanded between his 2011 grand jury testimony and the 2012 trial.
At trial, he estimated roughly 40 instances of oral sex.
Sebastian Paden’s Escalating Allegations
After Sandusky’s November 5, 2011, arrest and a public hotline appeal, Sebastian Paden’s mother contacted authorities. When police first arrived, Paden said no abuse occurred; days later (November 9), he told a grand jury Sandusky had abused him.
His grand jury account included weekend overnights, forced oral sex, and anal penetration, and he claims he screamed while Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, was upstairs.
At the 2012 trial, Paden’s details shifted: from some weekends to every weekend for three years – ages 13/14/15; locked and “alone in the basement” with no one heeding his screams.
Ryan Rittmeyer’s Testimony
Ryan Rittmeyer (b. 1988) attended Second Mile camps (1997–1999), spent time in foster care, and later had criminal convictions (burglary in 2004; burglary and assault in 2007). After Sandusky’s arrest, he phoned the hotline and retained attorney Andrew Shubin.
In his first police interview, he alleged that Sandusky groped him in a pool.
Then in a second interview, he said that Sandusky abused him in a “silver convertible,” demanded oral sex, and threatened him when he refused.
In Dec. 2011 grand-jury testimony, his account expanded to near-monthly sexual incidents through 1999, including mutual oral sex.
At trial (June 22, 2012), he added an episode of oral sex in Sandusky’s basement.
Sandusky never owned a convertible.
The Unidentified Victim and a Key Witness’s Recantation
“Victim 8” was based on testimony from Penn State janitor Ronald Petrosky.
Petrosky testified that around 2000, a temporary janitor, Jim Calhoun, told him he had witnessed Sandusky engaged in a sexual act with a boy in a Penn State shower.
The actual boy was never identified.
Petrosky’s story changed between his grand jury testimony and the trial, including the location of the locker room and the sequence of events.
A tape-recorded police interview with the alleged eyewitness, Calhoun, from May 2011 revealed that when asked directly if the perpetrator was Jerry Sandusky, Calhoun stated, “No… It wasn’t him… Sandusky never did anything at all that I can see.”
The prosecution did not call Calhoun, claiming he was incapacitated, nor did they present the tape to the jury at the trial.
The Unresolved Identity of Victim 2 and McQueary’s Backlash
On November 7, 2011, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly, announcing charges against Sandusky, urged the still-unidentified “Victim 2” from the Penn State shower to come forward.
Allan Myers had already told state police in September 2011 that Sandusky never abused him and, two days after Kelly’s remarks, gave the defense a sworn statement identifying himself as the shower boy and denying misconduct.
Shortly after, Myers retained attorney Andrew Shubin. Prosecutors ultimately did not call Myers, leaving “Victim 2″ unidentified.
Meanwhile, Mike McQueary faced backlash because he had told a story that he witnessed a then-57-year-old Sandusky raping a boy, and he, at 6’5”, 220 pounds, 27 years old, and a former star quarterback, did nothing.
Critics questioned why he didn’t intervene or contact the police directly.
The Pre-Trial Meeting and Waived Hearing
On December 12, 2011, the night before Jerry Sandusky’s scheduled preliminary hearing, an off-the-record meeting was held at a hotel in State College.
Attendees included Judge John Cleland, the presiding trial judge; Sandusky’s defense attorney, Joseph Amendola; prosecutors Frank Fina and Joe McGettigan; and a district magistrate. Sandusky was not present. Neither was Sandsusky’s co-counsel Karl Romminger.
During this meeting, which was not transcribed by a court reporter, Amendola agreed to waive Sandusky’s right to the preliminary hearing. In exchange, the prosecution agreed not to seek an increase in Sandusky’s bail if they filed additional charges. The parties also agreed to an accelerated trial schedule.
When co-counsel Romminger found out, he objected, arguing that waiving the preliminary hearing deprived Sandusky of the opportunity to learn who the accusers were and question them under oath before trial.
A Rushed Trial and Problematic Jury Selection
Judge Cleland forced the case from indictment to trial in seven months —setting a June 2012 date.
Just days before the trial, Amendola and Rominger said they still lacked basics (dates of abuse, birthdates, and even the names of complainants.
Cleland denied continuances, kept venue in Centre County, and rejected Amendola’s last-minute bid to withdraw because he did not have time to prepare appropriately.
Jury selection lasted two days.
The panel came from a Penn State–saturated community. Many potential jurors knew key figures involved in the case, had been following the media closely, or admitted leaning toward guilt.
Cleland kept them—praising their candor—while Amendola failed to strike, even seating a student who openly said he already believed Sandusky was guilty. Another juror said he would be afraid to face his wife if he found Sandusky innocent.
Opening Statements: Predator vs. An Uphill Battle
Joe McGettigan’s opening branded Sandusky a “serial predatory pedophile.” He told jurors to see the accusers as frightened children (not as the men they were now) and projected enlarged childhood photos of each man while walking the jury through alleged “escalating” abuse.
He primed them to expect fuzzy timelines—saying the men “don’t want to remember”—and that gaps in memory were proof of truth.
Joe Amendola’s opening called the prosecution’s case’ overwhelming,’ likened his task to climbing Everest, and conceded that Sandusky ‘got showers with kids,’ saying it was a generational issue.
The Prosecution’s Case: Emotional Testimony and Evolving Accounts
On June 11, 2012, prosecutor Joe McGettigan called Brett Houtz (Victim 4). His civil lawyer, Ben Andreozzi, was present as the 28-year-old testified he met Sandusky at 13 through The Second Mile, and was treated “like a son.” That shower “soap battles” escalated to hugging, caressing, oral sex, and attempted sodomy, and that Sandusky’s hand-on-knee habit in the car infuriated him enough that he once smacked Sandusky with an empty soda bottle.
McGettigan displayed piles of gifts—clubs, snowboards, PSU gear, a bowl watch, a football—then read from earnest letters Sandusky wrote urging Houtz to keep his commitments.
In a string of leading questions Amendola didn’t block, McGettigan walked Houtz to “more than 40” instances of oral sex and attempts at digital and penile penetration.
On cross, Amendola floated motives (money, reputation for lying), and pressed why someone who could swat a knee-squeeze in a car couldn’t resist in a shower.
Houtz volunteered that he’d “buried” the memories for years.
Amendola established that the Lasch showers were open—no curtains, no key code—yet Houtz said Sandusky never requested secrecy.
A Parade of Accusers
Day two brought Aaron Fisher.
After three years with therapist Gillum, and three grand-jury appearances, Fisher described meeting Sandusky, weekend overnights, back-cracking hugs, raspberries on his stomach, then—through tears—oral sex both ways. He said he “froze” and later acted out, wetting the bed. Fisher said he spent every weekend for three years at Sandusky’s house, where Sandusky abused him.
On cross, Fisher conceded his accounts had shifted—denials, later confirmations, changing dates, and what happened to him.
He said that the police told him, “You’re not alone.” He acknowledged still seeing Gillum weekly.
Mike McQueary followed with his latest version of the shower episode: two or three “skin-on-skin” slaps, three split-second glances, Sandusky pressed behind a boy with “slow, subtle” midsection movement, then separation after a slammed locker.
Day three included Ryan Rittmeyer (Victim 10), who alleged oral sex in the basement and a “silver convertible.”
Next came Dustin Struble (Victim 7), who framed his changing account as memories returning in counseling: he’d “closed a door,” then therapy “reopened” it and “triggered” new details, including genital fondling he’d previously denied to the grand jury.
Michal Kajak (Victim 5) delivered a narrative dated to August 2001 (moved forward from 1998), preceded by a sauna, followed by lathering and forced hand-to-genital contact before he fled.
On the stand, janitor Ron Petrosky relayed what temporary janitor Jim Calhoun supposedly said—that he’d seen Sandusky “with the boy up against the shower wall, licking his privates.”
Calhoun didn’t testify; the defense was unaware Calhoun had told police it wasn’t Sandusky.
Concluding the Prosecution’s Case
Day Four:
Zach Konstas (Victim 6) revisited a 1998 shower. He said that now “chest hair was icky,” lathering made him “uncomfortable,” and after being lifted to rinse, he “blacked out” the rest—an absence of memory the prosecutor cast as trauma.
Jason Simcisko (Victim 3) testified he first denied abuse, then, after lawyer contact, “thought about it more,” deciding bedtime fondling had occurred.
Sabastian Paden (Victim 9) delivered the most extreme tale: repeated oral and anal rape as a “virtual prisoner” in the Sandusky basement—screams unheard, days without food—yet returning “almost every weekend” for three years.
After his mother testified about her son’s “stomach problems,” gifts, and missing underwear, the state rested.
The Defense’s Case: Character Witnesses and a Flawed Expert
The defense called mainly character witnesses, including coaches, neighbors, and Second Mile alumni (some of whom stayed overnight), to vouch that Sandusky was honest, truthful, law-abiding, and non-violent.
Fisher’s neighbor, Josh Fravel, testified that Fisher’s mother said, “I’ll own his (Sandusky’s) house… a nice big house in the country,” and Fisher talked about how the lawsuit was going to get him a “nice new Jeep.”
Dr. Dranov testified that McQueary came to him the night of the shower episode, described hearing sexual sounds, seeing a boy’s face, an arm pulling the boy back, but never a sexual act; as a mandatory reporter, Dranov did not call the police because McQueary did not say anything about a sexual act occurring.
The expert witness that Amendola selected was not ideal. Defense expert psychologist Elliot Atkins testified that after six hours with Sandusky, he labeled Sandusky with Histrionic Personality Disorder, calling the Houtz letters “inappropriate” and saying Jerry’s behavior “led to where he is now.”
On cross, Atkins conceded the traits are common and that if allegations were true a psychosexual disorder would fit.
Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, testified that she and her husband had a long, busy marriage, with many children around, and a basement that was not soundproof. She stated that she never saw anything improper. On the question—why would they lie?—she answered, “I don’t know what it would be for.”
Closing Arguments and the Verdict
In his closing argument, defense attorney Joseph Amendola struggled, inadvertently repeating the prosecution’s framing of abuse occurring “hundreds of times” while noting a lack of direct evidence. He attempted to highlight financial motives but undercut his own case by conceding, “Mr. Sandusky can still be guilty.”
For the prosecution, Joseph McGettigan worked to normalize the accusers’ evolving stories, attributing changes to shame and buried memories. He re-displayed childhood photos of the accusers with Sandusky, portraying the former coach as a “denying pedophile” who cruised a “victim pool” of vulnerable children. McGettigan invoked Mike McQueary and the janitor’s account as adult corroboration, ending with a theatrical flourish by holding up a photo and stating he carried the “souls” of the victims in his pocket.
The jury deliberated for two days before finding Jerry Sandusky guilty on 45 of 48 counts.
A Guilty Verdict and Immediate Aftermath
AG Linda Kelly hailed a historic win and lauded victims for “unearthing long-buried memories.”
Amendola further undercut his client: called conviction “expected” given the “overwhelming evidence,” praised prosecutors and judge, and did a cheery Anderson Cooper interview moments after losing.
On June 22, 2012, a jury found Jerry Sandusky guilty on 45 of 48 criminal counts of child sexual abuse. The three counts resulting in acquittal were the most severe charge related to the Mike McQueary shower incident, where sodomy was alleged but not witnessed, and two indecent assault charges involving other accusers.
Despite the acquittals on those specific counts, Sandusky was convicted on other charges related to the same individuals. The judge revoked his bail and remanded him to custody to await sentencing.
In October Judge Cleland sentenced 68-year-old Sandusky to 30–60 years.
Escalating Allegations in Civil Claims
Victim 3
In civil settlement filings with Penn State, Simcisco claimed repeated fondling under his clothes, anal penetration, and forced oral sex—acts not mentioned in his criminal trial testimony. The frequency of alleged abusive incidents was also increased.
Penn State University settled Simcisko’s claim for $7.25 million.
Victim 4
Penn State University settled Brett Swisher-Houtz’s claim for $7.2 million.
Victim 5
In civil settlement filings, Kajak’s allegations escalated significantly. For the first time, he claimed he had “recently recalled” that Sandusky sodomized him in the shower. His attorneys attributed these new memories to therapy with Dr. Steven R. Cohen, who suggested traumatic memories can be suppressed and later recovered.
Penn State settled Kajak’s claim for $8.1 million.
Multi-Million Dollar Settlements Concluded
Victim 6
Zachary Konstas pursued a separate action and received $1.5 million, despite offering limited details about the alleged conduct.
Victim 7
In Dustin Struble’s civil settlement filings, the allegations included additional details not presented at trial, such as an “erect” penis during a shower and a “tuck-in” ritual. Struble also adjusted the timeframe of the alleged abuse.
Penn State University settled Struble’s claim for $3.25 million.
Victim 9
Sabastian Paden’s testimony contained logistical questions, including how he and another accuser (Aaron Fisher) could have both spent every weekend in the same basement for three years without meeting, and the fact that the basement door could only be locked from the inside and led outside.
In 2015, Penn State University settled Paden’s civil claim for $20 million.
Final Payouts and Ongoing Imprisonment
Victim 10
Ryan Rittmeyer got $5.5 million.
Victim 1
Aaron Fisher received $7.5 million.
Victim 2
Allan Myers, the shower boy, without testifying or even being identified at the trial, collected $6.9 million.
Jerry Sandusky, now in his eighties and serving his 13th year of a 30-to-60-year sentence at SCI–Laurel Highlands, Sandusky continues to assert actual innocence.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
