Sandusky’s Wrongful Conviction Discussed by the Voice of Penn State Wrestling and Frank Parlato

Jeff Byers is a well-known radio personality who has been the voice of Penn State wrestling for over 31 years. He co-hosted “The Morning Guys” show since the summer of 2011 and has also been associated with Sports Radio 98.7 The FOX in State College. In addition to his radio work, he has served as a sales director and talk show host for various broadcasting companies. Byers is highly regarded for his role as the play-by-play broadcaster for Penn State Wrestling and has provided insightful commentary on the team’s National Championship. He is recognized as an integral part of the Penn State wrestling broadcast team.

He also, like myself, believes Jerry Sandusky is innocent.

I called on his morning radio show on Friday, February 16. Here is the entire audio interview.

Here is a slightly edited and abridged version of the interview.

Jeff Byers 

Frank, first, thank you for taking the time for us this morning. And thank you for the work you’re doing in investigating the Jerry Sandusky case.

Frank Parlato 

It’s a very compelling case. And it needs to be addressed.

Jeff Byers 

It does; unfortunately, not enough people or the right people are addressing it. But I’m happy to see your work on this.

Are you connected to Penn State, Penn State football, or anything along those lines?

Frank Parlato 

None whatsoever. I’ve never seen a Penn State football game. I knew nothing about this case except what I heard peripherally 12 years ago in the media when it was an all-consuming national news story.

Jeff Byers 

How long have you been looking into the Sandusky case?

Frank Parlato 

I began in October of 2023. One of my writers had written a story about an unrelated matter and happened to mention Jerry Sandusky as an aside in the story. He assumed, like everyone else, that he was guilty. Within 24 hours, I received an email from a very distinguished man, Dr. Frederick Crews, who was, for 30-plus years, the professor of English at Berkeley and head of the department. He’s written 14 books. A couple of bestsellers, his Random House Book of Style, sold more than 1 million copies. And he wrote a very short email. He said, “The truth about Jerry Sandusky is exactly the opposite of what the public believes.” And he linked a story that he had written about Sandusky. After reading it, I knew there was not a fair trial. Sandusky might or might not be guilty. This was my initial thought. I have since concluded that anyone who studies this with an open mind will realize that Jerry Sandusky is innocent. He’s a man who’s in prison falsely.

Jeff Byers 

John Ziegler thought the same thing. Ralph Cipriano, essentially the same thing; John Snedden. Person after person that takes the time to investigate this, whether it’s a journalist or an actual investigator, as John Snedden is, everyone comes to the same conclusion. This is a miscarriage of justice. Jerry Sandusky should not only get a new trial, but that trial should find him innocent because he is innocent.

What led you to the moment where you realized this is an innocent man

Frank Parlato 

You look at the nature of the judicial system and its relationship with prosecutors and the media. And in the Sandusky case, the media decided early that he was guilty. And they wrote strictly as if he were guilty before trial. So, you had an interesting dynamic that occurred. You had a judge, a jury, and a defense attorney, afraid to acquit. And you had a dishonest trio of prosecutors. Their prosecutorial misconduct is legion. They just cheated every inch of the way to railroad an innocent man to prison. Ultimately, they will be chastised for their actions in this case and probably disbarred. There is no statute of limitations for lawyers who suborn perjury, who illegally leak grand jury minutes, who coach so-called victims to lie and refer them to civil lawyers who promise them millions. You had a craven judge who was afraid to conduct a fair trial.

As I read these things, I saw the telltale signs: the repressed, recovered memory piece of this smacks of deceit. You’re aware of that, of course.

Jeff Byers 

Big time. Yes.

Frank Parlato 

And if you look at each of the eight accusers that the prosecutors paraded before the jury, every one of their stories falls apart upon even the slightest examination. And all of their stories changed. It changed when they went to the grand jury, and it changed when they testified at trial, and then it changed again when they made their settlement demands with Penn State. And the stories kept getting bigger and bigger, like the fisherman who tells the story of the fish he caught. It started as a minnow and became a whale.

Jeff Byers 

The only story that had remained consistent, from details of when and where any meetings occurred to where he was, his relationship, and his activities, was Jerry Sandusky. Everybody else’s story changed. I’m going to amend that a bit. Graham Spanier’s story has remained the same. Tim Curly’s story has remained the same. And Gary Schultz’s story has remained the same. What is amazing is that you have four community pillars here. And we were told, basically, to, “Oh, you can’t trust those guys anymore. We now must take the word of Mike McQueary.” And to show you how strongly we have to take the word of Mike McQueary, we’re going to exaggerate and change the story of the changing story that Mike McQueary has given.

If you break this down as you have done, it is patently absurd. But that absurdity unfortunately became reality here for the Sandusky family and the Penn State community.

Frank Parlato 

Well, that is true, and you have to look at villain number one, the man pulling the strings behind the curtain, and that is Governor Corbett.

Jeff Byers 

Explain that a little bit.

Frank Parlato 

This was a man who was reckless of truth, reckless of justice. He was the attorney general. Then he became the governor. He had the Sandusky case when he was attorney general. He found it to his liking for economic and personal gain to sacrifice an innocent man, Jerry Sandusky, and his role in this is very large. It was a perfect storm. Corbett was looking to punish Graham Spanier. He was looking to cut the Penn State budget and utilize Mike McQueary, who I would consider less than a man I’d want to trust for testimony. They use his bogus story and turn that into a way of cutting the Penn State budget and firing Spanier and everyone else, destroying the legacy of a man who lived for integrity, Joe Paterno. And sending an innocent man who only tried to help young people and put him in prison with the hope that he would die there. A man who does that does not deserve to be an Attorney General or a Governor; he deserves to be in Sandusky’s cell, trade places with him.

Jeff Byers 

I could not agree more… Was there a specific instance when you were going through the case where you truly came to believe that Jerry Sandusky was innocent, or was it the preponderance of the evidence like nothing here indicated actual guilt?

Frank Parlato 

The big tell for me was that every single person who testified against Jerry, every one of the accusers, made more than $1 million for their stories. And, when you look at their stories, they’re implausible. They’re impossible stories. And that was the first thing. Repressed memories. All or almost all of them initially said that nothing happened. Jerry is a great guy. That was their original story. We’re dealing with eight people the prosecution brought to trial against Jerry Sandusky. And all eight began by saying nothing happened. Jerry’s a great guy. And they all get tempted to lie. And they used repressed memory therapists to excuse their original statement that Jerry did nothing. So, the first thing that struck me was money is driving this. And their stories are dishonest, and their stories have changed. So that was number one. How could they do so well with their revised stories? How did they get millions of dollars?

One guy who told whoppers got $20 million.

Sabastian Paden is his name. And so, these people came in, and they lied. The prosecutors encouraged them to lie. They were referred to civil attorneys who promised them wealth. The civil attorneys sent them to therapists who told them to fake some memories essentially. This massive greed worked in tandem with Governor Corbett’s selfish agenda. And with a trio of prosecutors who were reckless and dishonest. And to top it all off, Jerry unfortunately had the world’s worst attorney.

Jeff Byers 

Yeah, I think they just got overwhelmed. When you look at the number of other cases out there that seemingly are open and shut cases, it takes years and years until they get to trial. And when you look at the amount of evidence they had to go through here, with Jerry Sandusky, and only to have months to try to get a handle on it, I mean, that in and of itself is just such a clear miscarriage of justice. One of the great frustrations for me, and I’m sure the Sandusky family, is the fact that it is overwhelming to me the amount of evidence here that has been presented in courts that screams for a new trial. This was a miscarriage of justice; even if you are convinced of his guilt, there is no possible way any human being, in my opinion here, can look at this case and say, oh, yeah, but he got a fair trial. You cannot feel that way after looking at this case. And yet, time and time again, the courts have rejected the appeals for a new trial. And again, for me, that is open and shut; that new trial should have been granted a decade ago. Do you have any explanation other than the politics in play as to why we wouldn’t already have a new trial by this point?

Frank Parlato 

It’s similar to the police blue line. The judiciary in Pennsylvania, like it is in many places, is self-serving and, to a degree, you could call it corrupt. The Pennsylvania judiciary at the state level is protecting its reputation because once it is known and it will be known that Jerry Sandusky is innocent, once the nation knows that, they’re going to be humiliated. Are they not competent to determine that Jerry Sandusky deserves a new trial? This is a deliberate attempt to prevent a new trial because they don’t want the embarrassment that time and new discoveries have revealed that Sandusky is innocent. And this was a hit job. This was a railroading of a man to prison. You refer to the rush trial. It was rushed in collusion with the attorney for Sandusky. They rushed this trial — seven months from indictment to trial. And I can’t help but believe there was collusion. They decided we have to sacrifice this guy. And we’re not going to give him a fair trial. And I want you, Mr. Defense Attorney Joe Amendola, to take the fall, to throw the case. That’s my opinion. And there’s plenty of evidence to support that.

Jeff Byers 

So you remain optimistic that eventually the truth is going to get the truth is there. Do you think, eventually, the country is going to see this the same way? Because I don’t have that faith. I want to. It should be.

And it’s pretty compelling evidence of his innocence. And they won’t look at it. But they also won’t defend the prosecution.

Frank Parlato 

They know, the prosecutors know, the judge knows. They know they sent an innocent man to prison. The judge might have some misgivings. But he was afraid to stand up. Amendola knows Sandusky’s innocent. The prosecutors know he’s innocent. The appellate judges know he’s innocent. They know that a new trial is warranted, and this was a game to railroad an innocent man. And there’s a lot of shame for Penn State.

Penn State is not truly an institution of higher learning. It’s an institution of lower learning because they allowed an innocent man to go to prison and move on, wash their hands of it. There are professors there, there are students there, there are trustees there, and they idly sit by while an innocent man now turned 80, may die in prison. He’s innocent, and for the politics and the welfare of Penn State, an innocent man is suffering in prison. And Penn State doesn’t care. There should be protests. They took the man’s statue down — Joe Paterno, he did nothing wrong. But to live with this injustice speaks volumes about Penn State. And I think it will hurt Penn State more than it could have hurt them with the Sandusky “scandal.” I think Penn State will live in infamy if they don’t do something to right this wrong.

Jeff Byers 

You’re right, but the national perception is that Penn State did the right thing, which is one of the great frustrations, and the entire case is completely flipped upside down from what it should be.

I want to pick up on one other component here that I don’t think gets enough attention: Jerry Sandusky’s demeanor and personality. Have you investigated other pedophiles? I ended up doing more research than I ever thought I would on pedophiles. Jerry Sandusky is not consistent with a pedophile, not in any way, shape, or form. At no point did Jerry Sandusky contact any of these now, supposedly, you know, 10s and 10s of victims at the very least, at no point did he reach out to any of them and say, hey, I am so sorry. Please change your story. You know, I’ll help you out here. Not once. Not once did he have anything on any of his computers with child porn on it in any way, shape, or form. Those closest to him. And again, look at the other people who have been accused and then convicted of pedophilia. And you have wives immediately filing for divorce, children who want nothing to do with them, like people saying, oh my god, I didn’t see it. But now I see it. The people, neighbors, family members, and those closest to Jerry Sandusky all maintain, “No, this is absurd.”

Because this didn’t happen.

It’s not how a pedophile acts, and it’s not how people close to him react when they find out, oh, my God, these horrific things occurred. There is nothing consistent here with a pedophile in terms of Jerry Sandusky’s reactions to this from the first time that he was mentioned as a suspect in these cases.

Frank Parlato 

I agree. He doesn’t fit any profile of any pedophile ever known.

Jeff Byers 

What are you hoping to achieve with your investigative series?

Frank Parlato 

This investigative series will lead to his getting a new trial; at this time, the prosecution will probably choose not to pursue a new trial, and he will walk free. And the first signs of that are already occurring with media interest in the story. I’m about to present this on a much larger scale. But already 10s of 1000s of people have been reading these stories. The audience is growing daily. This story is starting to spread, and you have an army of fans of Joe Paterno, who always felt something wrong here in the unwarranted destruction of his reputation. Soon, I will be filming a major documentary on this, aired on a major streamer. There’ll be a book and major mainstream press on this, and gradually, it will become a contentious debate. It’ll begin as a debate. Could we have made a mistake like the witch trials of Salem or the McMartin Day Care case? Did we put an innocent man in prison? That’ll be the debate. There’ll be people fighting it; gradually, the truth will come out, and gradually, he’ll come out, and some heads will roll. The sooner people realize that, the quicker it will be for them to save themselves.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio