The 25 Minutes That Could Free Jerry Sandusky
A Centre County judge threw out Jerry Sandusky’s bid for a new trial on February 27, 2026, without seeing key evidence in the case.
That evidence is an affidavit from Jasmine Rittmeyer, the estranged wife of Victim 10 — Ryan Rittmeyer. In it, she corroborates what her husband said: Sandusky did not abuse him.
Judge Maureen Skerda dismissed Sandusky’s Post-Conviction Relief Act petition without holding a hearing and without issuing the 20-day notice required under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907 — the mandatory procedural step that gives a defendant time to respond before a PCRA petition is thrown out.
What Jasmine Rittmeyer Says Under Oath
The affidavit is 23 paragraphs of contemporaneous observation from a woman who shared a life with Ryan Rittmeyer for years. She swore, under penalty of perjury, that Ryan told her that Sandusky never sexually abused him.
Jasmine and Ryan’s relationship began in June 2010. During that time, Ryan confided to her that he had been sexually abused as a boy by a half-uncle. Ryan never mentioned any improper conduct by Sandusky before mid-November 2011.
That changed the week of their wedding. Jasmine read a news article about Sandusky’s arrest. She mentioned it to Ryan in the car. He immediately identified Sandusky by name — not from the news, but because he knew him. Ryan described positive experiences: barbecues at the Sandusky home, football games, trips to the mall, and the purchase of school clothes for him. He called Sandusky “the most wonderful person I’ve ever met.”
Jasmine asked Ryan whether Sandusky had ever done anything inappropriate to him. His response, as she swears under oath, was: “No, never.”
After that denial, Ryan went into their bedroom with the computer for approximately 25 minutes. When he came out, he told Jasmine he had called a victim hotline and scheduled a meeting with a detective for the following day.
The next day, a Pennsylvania State Police detective interviewed Ryan at their home. Jasmine was present. He described two incidents: during swimming, Sandusky lifted him into the air and threw him into the water; during this horseplay, his hand “slipped” up his swim trunks; and in a car, Sandusky placed a hand on his upper thigh. Ryan said he told his foster mother he no longer wanted to see Sandusky after these incidents. Jasmine found the account lacking in substance.
The Allegations Escalate
Shortly after the interview, Ryan reached out to his former Second Mile roommate, Jason Simcisko, on Facebook, speculating to Jasmine about whether he knew anything about the allegations.
When Ryan and Jasmine were taken to Harrisburg to meet with lead prosecutor Joseph McGettigan, the allegations escalated. McGettigan informed Ryan that Simcisko was also an accuser and instructed Ryan not to contact him to avoid the appearance of “conspiring.”
After that and other meetings with the prosecution, Ryan’s account became increasingly severe and detailed, culminating in his trial testimony.
At some point either before or immediately after the trial, Ryan retained attorney Andrew Shubin, who stood to collect millions in civil settlement fees. Jasmine later learned that Simcisko was also represented by Shubin. This was inconsistent with Ryan’s trial testimony, in which he stated under oath that he had no lawyer and no financial interest in the case.
Through Shubin, Ryan received a $5.5 million settlement from Penn State, netting him over $3 million. (Simcisko collected $7.2 million).
Jasmine states that receiving this money dramatically changed Ryan’s personality and their marriage.
The Pressure Admission
In late 2023, while investigating the Sandusky wrongful conviction, I contacted Ryan and suggested it would be beneficial for him to tell the truth and clear his conscience of living with a lie.
Shortly after that, Ryan told Jasmine that the prosecution had “pressured” him, according to Jasmine’s affidavit.
Jasmine concludes her affidavit by stating that she and Ryan are separated and plan to divorce. She states that she makes the affidavit not to support Ryan, but to help right what she calls “a terrible wrong.”
Based on the sequence of events — the initial denial, the evolution of his story following contact with the prosecution and another accuser, the financial settlement, and his shifting narrative — it is her belief that Ryan Rittmeyer was never sexually abused by Sandusky and that his trial testimony was not truthful.
Why Skerda Never Saw It
Sandusky’s defense team at Tucker Law Group was preparing to file the Jasmine Rittmeyer affidavit as part of an amended PCRA petition when Skerda dismissed. The Rule 907 notice that Skerda was required to issue — and didn’t — would have given them 20 days to supplement the record. The affidavit would have been part of that supplementation.
By illegally skipping Rule 907, Judge Skerda ensured she would not have to consider evidence that might free an innocent but unpopular man.
The Commonwealth’s Argument
The Commonwealth’s response to the PCRA petition, filed February 12, 2026, by Senior Deputy Attorney General Cari Mahler, argued that Ryan Rittmeyer’s recantation was merely impeachment evidence. It attacked the trial testimony but offered nothing new that could change the outcome.
The Jasmine Rittmeyer affidavit contradicts that argument. An independent witness corroborating a recantation transforms the evidence from impeachment into substantive proof of innocence.
Judge Skerda dismissed a claim of innocence without seeing the evidence that supported it. That is the record.
See Also: Judge Skerda’s Lawless Dismissal of Sandusky PCRA
Ryan said he told his foster mother he no longer wanted to see Sandusky after these incidents. Jasmine found the account lacking in substance.
Although “Jasmine found the account lacking in substance” has no legal meaning and almost no expository meaning, it keeps the context alive that the reader can't look at 100 circumstantial things and say “Well some must be true just because of the sheer number.”
EVERY time there is an innuendo, a false and contradictory accusation etc, you can't just say “I'll let the reader decide….I'll let the reader decide…I'll let the reader decide….”
You have to clue in the reader — for every accusation — that someone somewhere thought this is doubtful.
The reader can't be a jury reading incidence after incidence of evidence and saying, 'well just by the proponderance of evidence I think this is beyond reasonable doubt.'
Also, Frank, and this is important.
Being thrown in a swimming pool, hand-on-knee while driving, you shouldn't say there is a possibility it was 'hand slipped into swimming trunks' or 'hand was on thigh'.
Sandusky started a charity where kids without parents had fun and did things and *in public* huge huge groups of kisd were thrown into a pool.
In a 5 hour detective interview you get a kid to admit, his hand MUST have touched my swimsuit. Because that's provable the detective can say , look it happened.
Then iti s down to how that *totally innocent* event gets written, rewritten.
But the starting statements are statements of totally appropriate behaviour.
Frank, you can't let readers get the idea that Sandusky actually used thowing kinds in a pool as a cover for desires.
It isn't true and it is the type of innuendo that prosecutors, detecties, and police introduced LATER.