The Sandusky Trial: A Study in How American Justice Fails

Two Accusers. Same Weekends. Same Bed. Same Three Years. Both Stories Cannot Be True.

Jerry Sandusky was convicted in 2012 based on testimony from ten accusers. Eight received civil settlements totaling over $60 million from Penn State. Two were never identified—phantom victims whose existence rests entirely on prosecutorial assertion.

I have spent two years investigating this case. What I found is not a story about whether Sandusky is guilty or innocent. It is a story about whether the trial that convicted him was fair.

It was not.

The Arithmetic Problem

Aaron Fisher, designated Victim 1, testified that he stayed at Sandusky’s house “probably close to a hundred, over”—”every weekend” for three years, from 2005 to 2008.

Sabastian Paden, designated Victim 9, testified that he visited the Sandusky home 100 to 150 times during the same period, staying “every weekend of the month” for three years.

Both testified they were abused alone. On the same bed. During the same weekends.

Both claims cannot be true.

If Fisher was there every weekend, Paden could not have been. If Paden was there every weekend, Fisher could not have been. This is not a matter of differing recollections. It is a mathematical impossibility.

The prosecution presented both narratives to the jury as fact.

The Mothers Speak

I obtained statements from the mothers of both accusers—the women who arranged and permitted their sons’ visits to the Sandusky home.

Dawn Hennessey, Aaron Fisher’s mother, told me directly:

“never did aaron go for three years every weekend… He went some weekends one night. Some times for the day. it was probably a three yr span he went their overnight but was never every weekend.”

She explained that Fisher’s visits were sporadic, frequently involved other children, and were limited by his wrestling schedule—tournaments she personally attended and documented.

Marie, Sabastian Paden’s mother, provided a sworn declaration stating that her son visited Sandusky “no more than 10-15 times, not 100-150 times as he testified.”

The mothers who controlled their children’s schedules say the foundational testimony was false.

Fisher and Paden received civil settlements totaling $27.5 million based on testimony their own mothers now contradict.

Sandusky Basement

The Basement That Wasn’t a Prison

Paden testified that he was held captive in Sandusky’s basement, that his screams went unheard, and that he could not escape.

I inspected that basement.

It is a walkout basement with multiple unobstructed exit routes. The photographs speak for themselves.

Paden described repeated violent assaults. No medical records document injuries. No teacher, coach, or adult noted signs of trauma.

His mother states that he “was not alone during his visits with Mr. Sandusky; other boys were almost always present.”

The prosecution presented testimony about a basement prison that does not exist.

The Therapist Who Wrote the Book

Aaron Fisher’s accusations began in November 2008. He told his mother that Sandusky touched him inappropriately over his clothing—following an argument about being required to spend time with Sandusky.

A caseworker interviewed Fisher for one hour. The interview was tape-recorded. Fisher did not disclose sexual contact. He said Sandusky “cracked his back” approximately thirty times.

State Police interviewed Fisher. They intentionally did not record the interview because, as the officer acknowledged at trial, a recording “would aid a defense attorney.” Fisher denied that Sandusky touched his genitals. He denied oral sex.

Then Fisher was referred to psychologist Michael Gillum.

Gillum told Fisher: “I know something terrible happened to you.” He instructed Fisher that Sandusky fit “the exact profile of a predator.”

Fisher’s story changed.

What the jury did not know: Gillum was co-authoring a book with Fisher throughout this period. Silent No More was published two weeks after Sandusky’s sentencing.

What the jury did not know: Gillum attended Fisher’s grand jury testimony—a proceeding from which all persons other than witnesses, attorneys, court reporters, and law enforcement are excluded by statute.

What the jury did not know: Gillum drafted or assisted in drafting Fisher’s grand jury testimony, which Fisher then read.

What the jury did not know: Gillum was in financial distress and had a direct financial stake in Fisher becoming a successful accuser.

What the jury did not know: Gillum participated in a three-hour meeting with prosecutor Frank Fina. He was driven to the courthouse by State Police during trial and sat with Attorney General Linda Kelly during the proceedings.

The therapist who shaped the first accuser’s story was a de facto member of the prosecution team.

The Grand Jury That Wouldn’t Indict

Fisher testified before the grand jury. No charges were issued.

Fisher testified a second time. No charges were issued.

During his November 2009 grand jury testimony, Fisher initially denied that oral sex had occurred—until the prosecutor reminded him that he had previously stated otherwise.

By March 2010, prosecutors expressed “serious concern about the likelihood of a successful prosecution due to problems with Fisher’s credibility and the lack of other victims.”

One accuser. Changing story. Twice-rejected by a grand jury.

Then came the leak.

On March 31, 2011, newspapers published information from the secret grand jury investigation. Within days, civil attorneys began contacting investigators with new potential accusers.

The pipeline was open.

The Money

Every accuser who testified at trial—except the two phantom victims who were never identified—received a civil settlement from Penn State.

Sandusky was convicted of abusing Victims 2 and 8. Neither was ever identified. Neither testified. The jury convicted based on prosecutorial assertion alone.

The Prosecutors Who Profited

Lead prosecutor Joseph McGettigan told Sabastian Paden he would “never have to work a day in your life.”

While still a Deputy Attorney General prosecuting Sandusky, McGettigan facilitated an introduction between Paden and civil attorney Dennis McAndrews.

After the conviction, McGettigan left the Attorney General’s office and joined McAndrews’s law firm.

Penn State paid Paden $20 million.

Attorney McAndrews established a trust for Paden’s settlement. The trust document, dated April 16, 2015, created a “Trust Protective Committee” with ultimate authority over the funds.

The three members of that committee:

1. Frank Fina — the prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury
2. Gay Warren — the live-in girlfriend of prosecutor Joseph McGettigan
3. Lauren Cliggitt — Paden’s therapist

The prosecutors who secured the conviction took paid positions controlling the settlement money.

The Trust Protective Committee can veto any distribution over $100,000. They can remove the trustee. They can block Paden from ever gaining control of his own assets. They receive $5,000 annually plus hourly compensation—paid from the trust they control.

Paden receives $1,500 per week from what remains of his trust based on his original $20 million settlement.

I obtained an email dated October 15, 2020—eight years after the trial—showing Frank Fina still coordinating meetings regarding Paden’s family affairs.

The prosecutors never left.

The Coached Testimony

Marie, Paden’s mother, testified at trial. Her testimony was used to corroborate her son’s account.

According to Marie, McGettigan did not simply prepare her to testify. He instructed her on what to say.

Specifically, McGettigan told her to mention that she wished Sandusky had bought her son “underwear and socks instead of Nike gear.”

Marie was sequestered. She did not know her son had testified that he disposed of underwear after being abused. McGettigan’s instruction was designed to make the jury believe her innocent observation unknowingly confirmed her son’s abuse.

She testified as directed: “I wish he would have just gave him some underwear to replace the underwear that I could never find in my laundry.”

The jury drew the intended inference.

The truth: According to Marie, her son “had hidden his underwear and socks since he was three or four, well before he met Mr. Sandusky.”

McGettigan knew this. He manufactured corroboration.

The Recantation

Ryan Rittmeyer, designated Victim 10, has provided a sworn affidavit recanting his trial testimony.

He states that investigators “told me that my role was critical to stopping a predator” and “repeatedly encouraged me to believe that Mr. Sandusky had molested me—despite my lack of clear or certain memory of any such conduct.”

He states he was told “that trauma may have fragmented my memory, and that I could safely affirm details I did not fully recall.”

He states his account “changed over time” as “the result of emotional strain, repeated exposure to leading questions, intense investigative pressure and psychological manipulation.”

He specifically identifies the lead prosecutor: “I was misled repeatedly during the process, particularly by prosecutor Joe McGettigan.”

Rittmeyer received $5.5 million approximately one year after testifying—an outcome, he states, the prosecution assured him would occur.

His testimony “was not willfully false, but induced under extreme psychological and institutional pressure.”

The Repressed Memories

The Commonwealth represented to the jury that therapy had not affected the accusers’ memories.

Civil questionnaires submitted by the accusers to Penn State—obtained through discovery—prove otherwise.

Michal Kajak’s questionnaire states that he “recently recalled the facts relating to the sodomy in the shower” based on therapy, explaining that “while [he] had not recalled these facts at the time of his trial testimony in June 2012, they are entirely consistent with, and an extension of, his prior testimony.”

His therapist opined: “It is not uncommon for victims of sexual assault to block out memories and details of the event, but have flashbacks later in life and recall the details that have been long suppressed.”

Dustin Struble’s questionnaire states: “additional information will become available as time goes on and this victim is able to process the abuse and break down barriers to memory formed by coping mechanisms developed to survive the horrific traumas endured.”

Jason Simcisko’s questionnaire contains identical language, word-for-word.

Cookie-cutter accusations. Shared therapists. A pipeline from accusation to therapy to expanded allegations to civil settlement.

The Commonwealth told the jury that therapy had not affected the accusers’ memories. The questionnaires prove the Commonwealth lied.

146 Days

Sandusky was formally arraigned on January 11, 2012.

Jury selection occurred on June 5-6, 2012.

146 days to prepare a defense against 52 counts involving 10 accusers spanning 15 years.

Trial counsel requested additional time. The request was denied.

Discovery was produced in fragments: January 17, 23; March 7, 12, 27; April 27; May 4, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 31; June 4, 8, 15.

The final discovery arrived nine days before trial.

The Question

I began this investigation because Professor Frederick Crews, then ninety years old, contacted me. Crews spent his career at UC Berkeley exposing the dangers of suggestive therapy, memory contamination, and the pseudoscientific underpinnings of “recovered memory.”

He told me: “The truth about the Sandusky case is exactly the opposite to what the public believes.”

After two years of investigation, I can tell you this:

Two accusers claimed exclusive access to the same home on the same weekends for the same three years. Their mothers say both claims were false.

A therapist co-authoring a book with the first accuser drafted that accuser’s grand jury testimony.

Prosecutors promised accusers they would never have to work again, then took paid positions controlling their settlement money.

The Commonwealth told the jury that therapy had not affected the accusers’ memories. Documentary evidence proves the Commonwealth lied.

A witness has recanted, describing systematic coaching and psychological manipulation.

The basement prison described at trial does not exist.

This is not a question of guilt or innocence. This is a question of whether the American justice system can convict a man based on testimony that is mathematically impossible, induced through psychological manipulation, and contradicted by the accusers’ own mothers.

The answer, apparently, is yes.

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