I’ve got to give it to them: the Sanduskys are pretty brazen.
Ten young men initially came forward with claims of abuse. An additional twelve charges have been laid at Sandusky’s feet. It’s pretty unlikely this is a conspiracy designed to tarnish Sandusky’s reputation. Besides the men’s accusations, there are several witnesses and Penn State reports that are adding up in a way unfavorable to Sandusky.
And yet Dottie Sandusky had this to say about the situation:
“I am so sad anyone would make such a terrible accusation which is absolutely untrue,” she said. “We don’t know why these young men have made these false accusations, but we want everyone to know they are untrue.”
She elaborates, “I have been devastated by these accusations,” she said. “Our children, our extended family and friends know how much Jerry and I love kids and have always tried to help and care for them. We would never do anything to hurt them.”
***
Jerry himself has given two interviews. Why would the man go so public? A theory: This is what abusers do, according to psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner, ABC’s forensic psychiatrist. “The way he helps himself is by communicating in the way that predatory sex offenders relate their crimes, through cognitive distortion. A way a defender relates about his actions to another that sounds convincing but denies, justifies, rationalizes and minimalizes in such a way to say, ‘nothing to see here, move on.'”
Welner said he finds the evidence against Sandusky compelling. “They had a discussion in this interview about barriers. There are no barriers. Sexual assault is a process, it’s the end point of a process of grooming. It didn’t just happen, he orchestrated it, and yet to see that interview, you would think that it just happened, and it’s up to you as a jury or audience to see whether it’s illegal or not,” said Welner.
***
But what about Dottie? What is she thinking? Why does she seem so committed to Jerry’s innocence?
Co-dependency is an issue in all sorts of dysfunction. In the case of sexual abuse, it can be particularly thorny. There are some psychiatrists who suggest that the partner of the abuser can be collusive, and that they should have known. Many studies of dysfunctional families engaged in sexual abuse blame the mother.
A survey of more modern psychological literature suggests a collusive partner is not necessarily guilty of abuse, nor necessarily knowledgeable. Yet, there are patterns of co-dependency that can allow a partner to be knowledgeable of the abuse and incapable of acting upon it, due to feelings of powerlessness or being overwhelmed. Dottie may be acting out patterns of co-dependency or collusion, or she may simply be in denial. I know the abused aren’t their kids. But there are marked similarities inasmuch as the Sanduskys are a couple, and they were seen as nurturing, kid friendly people.
***
What baffles me about both of them, however, is the lack of any remorse or shame. In the Sandusky view of the universe, Jerry seems to be victimized by several boys who are calling him out. Given the evidence, this is probably going to not be proven the case when a jury looks the case over. What good does brazening it out now do? Denial will only amplify the shame and the culpability later on. The public finds it despicable. You only have to look at the Casey Anthony case to see proof of that. She was found innocent, but her reputation is trash.
At the end of season one of Luther, the fiance of a victim says to her murderer, “Isn’t enough that you killed her? Now you have to lie about it? Where is your shame? Where is your dignity?”
I expect Jerry Sandusky to respond in the classic manner of abusers. He seems pretty hard core. Dottie is responding in the classic manner of co-dependence. Both are ignoring reality, reality in the terms of evidence to the contrary, as hard as they can. And they both will pay the price for it, whether Sandusky ends up in jail or not.
In a twisted way, I understand the Sanduskys. The one who puzzles me is their lawyer. What is he thinking?!!! Every time Jerry Sandusky opens his mouth in public, he’s making things worse for himself; why is his lawyer not telling him to shut up NOW? Doesn’t he have a sock he can stuff into his client’s mouth?
You know, I had originally thought of including a question regarding the lawyers in this entry, but I thought that this would be exactly the kind of situation where a client might not listen to prudent legal advice.
Somewhere in the background, a suit is shaking his head and realizing he is going to lose this case.
Cath
I saw the interview where Sandusky was asked about the allegations. When questioned, his answers were, as you said, dismissive, (just horsplay, or just kidding around like all families, ad nauseum) but the clincher was this: no eye contact with the interviewer, and so much figeting around the camera man had to follow him around to keep him in the frame, the guy was of course, even sitting down!
Also, I’m surprised at how inarticulate and simplistic someone of his social status is. In a nutshell, he’s a successful idiot. Makes me even more pissed off. As Ithilwen says, the lawyer also is not too smart to let his client’s obvious lies be broadcast. I say, bring it on, let the truth out.
Hate to say it, but yeah, the prosecutors, as a part of their case, could open up the textbooks on abuse and codependancy and just tick off the points.
Oh, and about their lawyer, it’s not like he doesn’t have his own problems with underaged sex/abuse.