Pedophile’s Wife Tells Matt Lauer Poor Jerry Sandusky Was Framed

Pedophile's Wife Tells Matt Lauer Poor Jerry Sandusky Was FramedIf we want to be bleeding heart about it, pedophiles like former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky are monsters in the truest sense of the word. As Wikipedia explains, “the word ‘monster’ derives from Latin monstrum, an aberrant occurrence, usually biological, that was taken as a sign that something was wrong within the natural order.” Pedophiles are sick, twisted, and probably broken-beyond-repair individuals.

However, the banal evil of Dottie Sandusky cannot be explained away as aberrant biology. The wife of a convicted pedophile sat down with The Today Show’s Matt Lauer to claim her husband is innocent and that the charges were all some evil plot.

Who could be behind this nefarious conspiracy to imprison a retired football coach and get a nearly dead Joe Paterno fired? Lawyers, according to Dottie, who manipulated the “victims” into pretending to be victims. The real victims in her deluded mind are Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, and Dottie Sandusky.

How did those nefarious lawyers manage to get ten kids, their parents, local police and prosecutors, assistant coach Mike McQueary, a judge, a jury, and everyone involved the Penn State investigation led by former FBI director Louis Freeh to join their conspiracy? By promising money. Money earned from lawsuits.

Basically, her theory sounds like a bizzaro-world True Detective where a conspiracy of wealthy and powerful people don’t molest and kill children, but rather frame an old football coach for molesting kids. Does that sound plausible? No, it doesn’t. In fact, it sounds crazier than the Sandy Hook truthers and Jenny McCarthy combined. Since Jerry Sandusky was convicted by a jury, what evidence does she have exonerating her husband?

For starters, the Sandusky house is really small. Lauer interviewed her there and concedes this point. If kids being molested had screamed, as one victim testified in court, Dottie would have heard them but she says she totally didn’t, so they didn’t scream (QED) because they weren’t being molested (QED). Unless, they did scream and she ignored the screams or blocked them out or, as was claimed in court, the basement had been soundproofed in some way. NBC cameras offered a glimpse into the basement and it looked like a regular basement, but soundproofing could have been removed since the crimes or maybe it’s hidden behind the fake wood paneling.

Then there is Dottie’s own belief. Like young earth creationists and people who think bitcoin is safer currency than dollars, Dottie Sandusky’s belief is all the evidence she really needs.

“I definitely believe him, because if I didn’t believe him, I would’ve, when I testified at trial, I could’ve not said what I said, I would’ve had to tell the truth,” Dottie told Lauer.

Sitting next to Dottie during the interview was former right-wing talk show host-turned-Sandusky defender John Ziegler. He claimed “Victim 2,” the boy McQueary claimed to have seen in the shower with Sandusky in 2001, denies anything ever happened.

“The number one thing that people should know, that is indisputable, is that the boy in the McQueary episode has stated publicly and in his own name that nothing happened that night or any night and he had never wavered from that,” Ziegler said.

That sounds compelling, except for how it’s total bullshit. Victim 2 settled a lawsuit with Penn State last year over Sandusky’s actions. If the kid says “nothing happened” why did Penn State give him money? Well, maybe because he didn’t claim “nothing happened.” In fact, Victim 2 claimed some very bad things did happen when he finally came forward after the trial.

According to the statement by the attorneys, the man approached them and confirmed that he had been abused for “many years both before and after the 2001 incident.”

Indisputable. That word doesn’t mean what you think it means, Ziegler. If John Ziegler sounds familiar, David Foster Wallace famously profile him for the Atlantic in 2005. When Wallace committed suicide, Ziegler was outraged it made the news. He claimed there exists an “old rule that suicides are not supposed to be news worthy (sic).” So, yeah, this guy is a colossal douchebag. And he’s about the only person left in Dotty Sandusky’s corner.

Jerry Sandusky is a monster who will spend the rest of his life in prison, where he belongs. But the sheer evil of Dottie Sandusky and John Ziegler, their willingness to attack and smear duly adjudicated victims of heinous child abuse for their own ends, it’s enough to hope hell exists and a special torment awaits these two when they get there.

[Today]

 

You may also like...

  • $160578

    Hard core creationists have been joined by climate change deniers in claiming that every scientist who claims evolution is a fact, like every scientist who claims climate change is real and at least in part man made, are simply lying, because if they buck the prevailing scientific orthodoxy, they lose access to jobs and grants and such.No amount of reasoning will shake them from these beliefs. It’s useless to point out those many of those remembered today as among the greatest scientists in history earned that title by challenging and overturning the prevailing scientific orthodoxy of their times – Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, etc. every one said the scientific consensus was wrong, every one got ridiculed, sometimes worse, and every one was proven right in the end.It’s useless to point out that a scientist today who could invalidate the Theory of Evolution would leap to the top as the greatest scientist of all time, for he would have overturned the orthodoxy of a dozen sciences, and of science itself.Nothing can be done in such cases, except to go around.

    • Azrael the Cat

      In fairness, Gallileo’s case wasn’t as clear-cut as the popular story goes:1. He was a major power player within the catholic church who came out the wrong end of a power struggle, not some ‘innocent outsider ‘who got steamrolled. For most of Gallileo’s career, he was the Pope’s primary scientific advisor, and he set the official science policies of the church. This role included twice-weekly meetings with the Pope, making him the most powerful lay-man in the catholic church at that time. Then the old pope died, and the new guy appointed his own science advisor. Power shenanigans ensued, and Galilleo lost. Note that Copernicus had presented essentially the same theory around a century earlier, without controversy – because he stayed the f*** out of politics.2.He botched his maths so badly that his own data appeared to be inconsistent with his conclusions. This meant that the theory failed in the very area it was intended to address – maritime navigation. What’s more, it wasn’t until a generation later that the errors in Gallileo’s calculations were discovered and fixed, with the result that in his own lifetime, the empirical evidence seemed to contradict his theory.3. Gallileo’s theory was, in its time, rejected on scientific grounds well before the catholic church took an official position. Basically due to point 2. Keep in mind that at this time, there wasn’t any concept of religion being at odds with science – science was just the study of the world, and was taken to reveal religion and the natural world alike (i.e. the possibility of wingnuts denying science because it contradicted a biblical reading simply didn’t exist as a concept back then – remember that the catholic church weren’t biblical literalists, so they didn’t have any theological need to question the science). Partially because of this, many of the ‘bishops’ in the church decisionmaking bodies weren’t priests in the modern sense, but scientists. politicians, businessmen etc appointed to act in that role. This included Gallileo’s long-time scientific (and political) opponent, who he went head to head with after the change of pope.4. Despite the above 1-3, Gallileo’s wasn’t actually barred from publishing his book – the only requirement was that he had to include a foreword stating that his account did not represent the majority view of the scientific community. Which was pretty reasonable, due to point 2 regarding his maths and the consequent contradictory empirical data. Gallileo complied with the requirement, but then wrote into the text his main political and scientific opponent (who had, by then, won the political power spat and replaced him as the church’s main science guy) in the role of the ‘fool’ who keeps interrupting the text’s narrator with idiotic questions. Basically, Gallileo was a dick. What’s more, while he was right, he didn’t actually have the evidence to back up his position – either Gallieo’s actions were as politically motivated as his opponent’s (the likely explanation, as he was a deft politician), or he had a major hissyfit over a completely reasonable request.Of course, none of this changes the fact that the church thew a guy in jail and let him die there, for purely political reasons. But while the ‘outsider scientist gets steamrolled by the major institution of the time’ is a great story, it isn’t even vaguely historically accurate. People of prior eras were not idiots – scratch the surface of any story implying that they were somehow less critically minded than ourselves, and you’ll find the reality is far more complex and interesting than the popular stories suggest.

    • onoruill

      Quantum physics tell us that matter does not produce matter, energy produces matter. 95% of matter is unaccounted for. Our science is based on the other 5%. 60% of energy is unaccounted for. Beat your drum evolutionist. You think reality ends at our 5 senses? Or just our intelligence? I struggle to see how a giraffe evolved out a fish more than I can see an unforeseen force created intelligent life and life beyond the physical world.

      • $160578

        “Quantum physics tell us that matter does not produce matter, energy produces matter.”Energy and matter are different manifestations of the same thing. Ever heard of E=MC^2?”95% of matter is unaccounted for. Our science is based on the other 5%. 60% of energy is unaccounted for.”Are you the Universe’s accountant? If so, you should be fired, because that sentence is gibberish.”You think reality ends at our 5 senses?”No. That’s why we build instruments to detect those aspects of reality that our senses cannot. “I struggle to see how a giraffe evolved out a fish…”I would too, if I were so misinformed as to think science says that’s what happened.”…more than I can see an unforeseen force created intelligent life and life beyond the physical world.”If an intelligent being created the Universe, thinking it had anything to do with us is akin to microbes in the belly of a termite in your attic thinking the city you live in was built to give them a home. It’s arrogance and ignorance blended together together and left to rot.

        • onoruill

          E=MC2 is general relativity, quantum mechanics is sub-molecular physics. The challenge for grand unification theory remains. I believe it was the galactic observations, of Case Western Reserve University, observing the stars in the outer rings of galaxies travelling as fast as the inner most stars. This requires 95% more matter than is detectable in the universe. “Dark Matter” and 60% more energy than is accountable “Dark Energy” causing the increasing rate of universe expansion.Instruments have not yet been created to observe nor define this matter/energy. Thus the multiverse, worm-hole/time-space, string theory, plane theory etc,Universal intelligence? Dr. Amit Goswami theoretical nuclear physicist and member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics since 1968, does a pretty good job of describing this, for most to understand, in his documentary “Quantum Activist”Dr. Wayne Dyer of St. John’s University NYC has a lot of great and very interesting materials available, including a newly released book “I Can See Clearly Now”

          • $160578

            Dark matter is detectable, otherwise we wouldn’t know about it. It reacts with “regular” matter gravitationally, not electromagnetically as regular matter does with itself. So it’s something different. And?I’m not interested in “spirituality” garbed in pseudoscientific phraseology and wedged into knowledge gaps. That’s nothing more than what religions which presume to describe reality have been doing for millennia, retreating into ignorance as they go.

          • onoruill

            Did you have a chance to check out “Quantum Activist”? Dr. Goswami’s documentary of applied theorectical physics supported by scientific research. This IS science’s attempt to bridge these knowledge gaps. Dr. Goswami remains on faculty at OU and has authored many physics related texts. I’m not interested in swapping insults with you zombiesentme (“retreating into ignorance as they go” – religion has not gone anywhere, scientific ignorance remains). If you are interested in fundamental ideology journalist Ian Wishart (former press secretary of New Zealand) sums up the end-game for fascist, communists, socialists, capitalists, globalists in “Totalitaria” (HATM 2013). The only chance for a utopian society on Earth resides in the US Constitution. Salvation, Peace, Love, Justice and Charity reside the Thrive Movement – check out their documentary for free on YouTube. Guide your spirit with whatever faith you prefer, that is the right we were all created with. Globally we need to all be nice to our neighbor, responsible to our Earth AND our Liberties. Otherwise there will only be war, control and slavery.

    • onoruill

      Hegelian Dialectic? Global warming is a very good fit.

      • $160578

        Thesis gives rise to Antithesis which in turn gives rise to Synthesis.What does that have to do with climate change?

        • onoruill

          Hegelian Dialectic is the conception of a perfect thesis leading only one direction to one synthesis, no antithesis. This was later utilized politically.

  • BaldarTFlagass

    “her husband is innocent and that the charges were all some evil plot.”I suspect that long-time football rival Ohio State is behind it/

    • Indeed. It all makes sense now. They had to stop Paterno.

  • Kakamangus

    When Paterno died, I said aloud ‘The world just got a little bit less evil’.

  • MsC

    If Sarge Dottie wants to live the rest of her pathetic life in denial, fine. She can brine in her bitter piss and vinegar all she likes. But when she takes that denial on national television and slanders her husband’s victims, pouring that piss and vinegar on their wounds, that’s unforgivable.

  • heidiWY

    If memory serves me correctly, this woman was in the same home while one of those boys was being raped. Am I right? Or thinking of the wrong case. There’s far too many of them.Fuck this bitch!! Excuse my language, but Fuck this Fucking Bitch.

  • Bernarda Alba

    It’s the easiest thing in the world to simply refuse to believe in something you don’t want to believe, especially if you have an economic interest in doing so.

  • ryp

    If you spent decades painfully constructing a citadel of denial only to have it come crashing down upon your head, you probably wouldn’t climb through the wreckage either.

  • gingerland62

    If she was honest she would have to admit that she was complicit in the hiding of these rapes. Her delusions are all she can cling to. As far as I am concerned she should be in prison, also. Didn’t one of his adopted children come forward?

  • Strepsi

    The most chilling part of this conspiracy article are the 14 lines of code at the bottom…. HappyNiceTimePeople is clearly beaming signals into Dottie Sandusky’s empty head!

  • blowitup

    interesting all of the comments about her denial. yet no one in this entire thread has taken even a moment to think — what if she’s telling the truth? closed-mindedness goes two ways here people.she has a legitimate point. penn state basically starting writing checks to get people to shut up. once that was known, the gravy train was open for business. her assertions are at least — on their face — plausible.

    • thixotropic jerk

      Ermm, no. Sandusky went to trial. He was convicted and sentenced. You have your facts wrong. Either you are in as much denial as Sandusky’s wife (appro named “Dottie”) or you are deliberately manufacturing BS for some reason. Which is it?

    • arrrghle

      Apparently you did not follow this story. One might want to check one’s facts lest one appear less bright than one actually is. There was massive evidence, including witnesses. Or then again maybe Catholic priests have never abused kids either. I guess it’s possible pedophilia just doesn’t exist at all.

  • arrrghle

    What, the wife of a long-time pedophile denying it’s true? That’s never happened before in the history of ever, has it? Oh wait. Except for all the time.

  • dsmith

    Paterno knew about the child abuse and he looked the other way which makes me think it would not be so hard for Ms. Sandusky to do the same.

  • onoruill

    The hysteria associated with this case makes accurate public judgement impossible. arrrghle – what facts do do you have to say “Except for all the time” concerning a wife proclaiming a husbands innocents? dsmith – what facts do you personally have to say “Paterno knew about the child abuse”? I see truth coming from Dotti. There was a time not long ago in this culture when men were men and showering in the locker room among men and boys was acceptable. I have friends who have foster children who are under scrutiny all the time “molesters?” “doing it for the money?” These children need a family and this should be promoted not pissed on.

  • onoruill

    Jump on the bandwagon zombies? Anti-human principle?