Accuser of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky expected to recant testimony

[volsrocks]

Jerry Sandusky is due to return to court next month as one of his accusers is expected to recant his testimony against the former Penn State assistant football coach who was convicted of sexually abusing boys for more than a decade, according to an affidavit.

A judge scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Sept. 8 in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.

Sandusky, who is now 82, has been serving a decades-long prison sentence after he was convicted in 2012 of abusing boys.

An accuser known as Victim 10, who testified for the prosecution at Sandusky's trial, is now prepared to tell the court Sandusky did not abuse him.

Victim 10 alleges prosecutors coached him in order to steer his testimony and asked him to revisit and reframe his allegations, writing in a sworn affidavit provided to the defense that "[t]hroughout the pretrial process, I was told -- both directly and indirectly -- that trauma may have fragmented my memory, and that I could safely affirm details I did not fully recall. I was assured this was common and even expected." The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office is expected to address the allegation at September's hearing.

Accuser of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky expected to recant testimony

Jerry Sandusky is due to return to court next month as one of his accusers is expected to recant his testimony.

abcnews.com

 

[Diogenes]

Don't lefties seem to enjoy excusing actual child sex abuse, though?

 

[AMERICA FIRST]

What did the guy say to Jerry Sandusky at the beach?

Hey do you mind, you're in my son!

 

[Yakuda]

Jerry Sandusky is due to return to court next month as one of his accusers is expected to recant his testimony against the former Penn State assistant football coach who was convicted of sexually abusing boys for more than a decade, according to an affidavit.

A judge scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Sept. 8 in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.

Sandusky, who is now 82, has been serving a decades-long prison sentence after he was convicted in 2012 of abusing boys.

An accuser known as Victim 10, who testified for the prosecution at Sandusky's trial, is now prepared to tell the court Sandusky did not abuse him.

Victim 10 alleges prosecutors coached him in order to steer his testimony and asked him to revisit and reframe his allegations, writing in a sworn affidavit provided to the defense that "[t]hroughout the pretrial process, I was told -- both directly and indirectly -- that trauma may have fragmented my memory, and that I could safely affirm details I did not fully recall. I was assured this was common and even expected." The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office is expected to address the allegation at September's hearing.

Accuser of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky expected to recant testimony

Jerry Sandusky is due to return to court next month as one of his accusers is expected to recant his testimony.

abcnews.com

I wonder why the sudden shift?

 

[Diogenes]

I wonder why the sudden shift?

I suspect that you already know why.

 

[cawacko]

Prosecutorial misconduct is a serious issue. That said Pedo State and Sandusky are still guilty AF. This is one kid out of many. Sandusky isn't going anywhere.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Not surprising at all, and the abuse of Penn State has never so far as I know been apologized for, though it must be remembered that the people who ran the University refused to defend it.

 

[Walt]

There were so many different witnesses against Sandusky. There were adults who witnessed him being inappropriate with children. It is such a diverse set of witnesses, I have trouble believing he is innocent.

But he is a Republican, so Team Epstein is desperately trying to prove him innocent. Hey maybe there was prosecutorial misconduct, it can happen even when the defendant is guilty as sin. Or maybe, just maybe, this is another attempt to suborn justice by Team Epstein.

 

[Hawkeye10]

There were so many different witnesses against Sandusky. There were adults who witnessed him being inappropriate with children. It is such a diverse set of witnesses, I have trouble believing he is innocent.

But he is a Republican, so Team Epstein is desperately trying to prove him innocent. Hey maybe there was prosecutorial misconduct, it can happen even when the defendant is guilty as sin. Or maybe, just maybe, this is another attempt to suborn justice by Team Epstein.

Nonsense, there was a mass unjust ganging up on the University and all involved....there are some who have a problem with that.

 

[Walt]

Prosecutorial misconduct is a serious issue. That said Pedo State and Sandusky are still guilty AF. This is one kid out of many. Sandusky isn't going anywhere.

I thought Cosby was never getting out... Team Epstein got him out. I thought Maxwell was never getting out... She has not yet, but is anyone sure anymore?

And even if they do not get him out, it will guarantee his coconspirators never go to prison. They keep saying there is one accused coconspirator left who is a Republican in office, but they refuse to say who he is.

 

[Diogenes]

There were so many different witnesses against Sandusky. There were adults who witnessed him being inappropriate with children. It is such a diverse set of witnesses, I have trouble believing he is innocent. But he is a Republican, so Team Epstein is desperately trying to prove him innocent. Hey maybe there was prosecutorial misconduct, it can happen even when the defendant is guilty as sin. Or maybe, just maybe, this is another attempt to suborn justice by Team Epstein.

The political frame is assertion, not analysis. Sandusky (and Paterno) were registered Republicans; that is documented. It does not explain this affidavit.

The filing is a specific process claim: leading questions, pressure, a recovered-memory-style script, and a story that grew (including a car Sandusky did not own).

Those are familiar problems in some child-abuse prosecutions of that era.

Attributing the recantation effort to “Team Epstein desperately trying to prove him innocent” because of party ID skips the actual document and the investigator who took the statement. “Suborn justice” is possible; so is a witness who was over-prepared and later walked it back. The hearing exists to test which it is.


Calling skeptics “Team Epstein” is forum rhetoric. Epstein-file material apparently includes Epstein wondering whether Sandusky might be innocent; that is a curiosity, not a chain of custody for this 2025 affidavit. It does not substitute for looking at how Victim 10’s account changed between first police contact and trial.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Nonsense, there was a mass unjust ganging up on the University and all involved....there are some who have a problem with that.

fuck that.

Paterno was also a pedo.

 

[Crepitus]

Jerry Sandusky is due to return to court next month as one of his accusers is expected to recant his testimony against the former Penn State assistant football coach who was convicted of sexually abusing boys for more than a decade, according to an affidavit.

A judge scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Sept. 8 in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.

Sandusky, who is now 82, has been serving a decades-long prison sentence after he was convicted in 2012 of abusing boys.

An accuser known as Victim 10, who testified for the prosecution at Sandusky's trial, is now prepared to tell the court Sandusky did not abuse him.

Victim 10 alleges prosecutors coached him in order to steer his testimony and asked him to revisit and reframe his allegations, writing in a sworn affidavit provided to the defense that "[t]hroughout the pretrial process, I was told -- both directly and indirectly -- that trauma may have fragmented my memory, and that I could safely affirm details I did not fully recall. I was assured this was common and even expected." The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office is expected to address the allegation at September's hearing.

Accuser of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky expected to recant testimony

Jerry Sandusky is due to return to court next month as one of his accusers is expected to recant his testimony.

abcnews.com

All of them?

 

[Walt]

Sandusky (and Paterno) were registered Republicans; that is documented. It does not explain this affidavit.

Team Epstein has been trying desperately to get Sandusky, Paterno, and the rest of the Republicans off. Maybe this affidavit is not involved with that, or maybe it is.

In other words, Team Epstein definitely explains this affidavit, but there are other possible explanations.

Those are familiar problems in some child-abuse prosecutions of that era.

Honestly, no. It was a familiar problem in the 1980's, but during the 1990's it was cleaned up. This was 20 years later.

 

[Hawkeye10]

fuck that.

Paterno was also a pedo.

Highly unlikely....what was said is that he knew that Sandusky was and did almost nothing.....as I recall he told the administration one time and then dropped it, letting Sandusky still hang around.

Its been awhile, but that is the way I remember it.

 

[Diogenes]

Team Epstein has been trying desperately to get Sandusky, Paterno, and the rest of the Republicans off. Maybe this affidavit is not involved with that, or maybe it is.
In other words, Team Epstein definitely explains this affidavit, but there are other possible explanations. Honestly, no. It was a familiar problem in the 1980's, but during the 1990's it was cleaned up. This was 20 years later.

Walt’s post is the usual two-step: first assign a motive that doesn’t have to be proven (“Team Epstein”), then treat a real process issue as if it had been retired in 1995.


What the document actually says


Ryan Rittmeyer (Victim 10) signed a June 30, 2025 affidavit. He does not claim he was put under hypnosis or sat through formal “recovered-memory therapy.” He says:

• He had no clear memory of sexual abuse when first interviewed.
• Investigators and prosecutors told him trauma fragments memory and that he could “safely affirm details [he] did not fully recall.”
• One prep session lasted about six hours; he was asked to revisit and reframe until the account lined up with what they wanted.
• The story grew (pool horseplay → oral sex in a basement; a car incident involving a vehicle Sandusky did not own).
• He now calls the testimony induced, not willfully invented.

His estranged wife’s affidavit adds contemporaneous detail: the day the arrest news broke he told her Sandusky had never touched him and was “the most wonderful person I’ve ever met,” then spent ~25 minutes on the computer, called the hotline, and the allegations escalated after meetings with Joe McGettigan’s team. He later took a $5.5 million civil settlement from Penn State.


That is a specific, testable claim about suggestion and coaching. It is not “Sandusky is innocent of everything.”


Walt’s two counters

1. “Team Epstein has been trying desperately to get Sandusky, Paterno, and the rest of the Republicans off. … Team Epstein definitely explains this affidavit.”
   
   There is a stray reference in Epstein-related material to someone wondering whether Sandusky might be innocent. That is not a chain of custody for a 2025 affidavit taken by Frank Parlato. Calling the filing “Team Epstein” is forum shorthand, not an explanation of how Rittmeyer’s account changed between first police contact and trial. The hearing exists because a judge found the recantation worth examining on its face.
2. “It was a familiar problem in the 1980s, but during the 1990s it was cleaned up. This was 20 years later.”
   
   The high-profile daycare panic cases and the most aggressive recovered-memory clinics were largely discredited by the late 1990s. That did not eliminate leading questions, repeated interviews, “your memory is fragmented so fill in the blanks,” or the pressure that comes when a witness is told his role is “critical to stopping a predator.” Those techniques were still in use in 2011–12. Elizabeth Loftus and others had already documented how easily accounts can be shaped that way. Rittmeyer’s own words track that literature more closely than they track McMartin-era hypnosis.

What the hearing can and cannot do


Sept. 8 in Bellefonte is limited to this recantation and related witnesses (Rittmeyer, the wife, Parlato, Frank Fina). Even if the court credits it, nine other victims plus McQueary’s shower testimony and the 1998 incident remain. One flipped count does not empty the indictment. Prosecutors will argue the recantation is late, financially motivated, and coached by the defense investigator. Both sides will have to put the 2011–12 interviews and the 2025 affidavit next to each other.


Walt’s post skips that comparison and goes straight to partisan motive. That’s why it reads like a dodge rather than a reply to the affidavit Diogenes actually cited.

 

[Walt]

then treat a real process issue as if it had been retired in 1995.

The trial happened in was in 2012, not 1995.

Maybe the prosecutors messed this part of the case up, but it does seem odd that suddenly this one witness so badly wants to tank the case. There is the possibility that Team Epstein is behind this.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The trial happened in was in 2012, not 1995.

Maybe the prosecutors messed this part of the case up, but it does seem odd that suddenly this one witness so badly wants to tank the case. There is the possibility that Team Epstein is behind this.

Some people feel bad about hurting other people by lying, even if the cops/DA had pushed the lying....it eats them up.

How many other witnesses lied?

 

[Diogenes]

The trial happened in was in 2012, not 1995. Maybe the prosecutors messed this part of the case up, but it does seem odd that suddenly this one witness so badly wants to tank the case. There is the possibility that Team Epstein is behind this.

Walt’s “nit” is a misread of the sentence, not a correction of the facts.


The line he quoted was: treat a real process issue as if it had been retired in 1995.


That is not a claim that the trial happened in 1995. It is a claim about when Walt said the problem was cleaned up.


Walt’s own earlier post said recovered-memory/suggestion problems were a 1980s issue that “during the 1990s it was cleaned up,” and that 2012 was therefore “20 years later.” The 1995 date was shorthand for that argument: he treated leading questions and “trauma fragmented your memory, so affirm details you don’t recall” as techniques that had already been retired by the mid-90s.


The trial was June 2012. Nobody said otherwise. The interviews and prep sessions that Rittmeyer now describes were 2011–2012. That is the period that matters, and it is after the scientific repudiation of aggressive recovered-memory work, not proof that suggestion and coaching had vanished from sex-abuse prosecutions.


The rest of the post is the same move as before:

• Concede that prosecutors might have “messed this part of the case up.”
• Then treat a recantation 13 years later as so odd that “Team Epstein” remains a live explanation.

Recantations years after a large civil settlement are odd. Timing and money are fair impeachment. So is the defense investigator who took the 2025 statement. Those go to weight. They do not convert “the story grew under repeated prep and a recovered-memory script” into a partisan plot. The Sept. 8 hearing is where those two stories get put next to the original interviews.


Walt is arguing the calendar instead of the affidavit.

 

[cawacko]

Not surprising at all, and the abuse of Penn State has never so far as I know been apologized for, though it must be remembered that the people who ran the University refused to defend it.

Paterno was the most powerful person at the University. The school knew where its bread was buttered and that was Penn St football. That's why the University takes the heat it does because it did not want to upset the apple cart.