The former Penn State coach called it "Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story." You couldn't make that up. If it were in a Hollywood movie, critics would call it not believable.
pennlive.com
And, if the title itself doesn't have your jaw dropping, then some of the excerpts inside will certainly do so. But even with all that was seen by others, and even written by the man, himself, no one stopped this monster. As a Penn State alum, I have really been struggling to comprehend how to remix my memories of Happy Valley with the evil realities that were allowed to just go on and on there.
I find myself filled with so many questions.
How could JoePA have done nothing? Why did McCleary just abandon that child and run away? What is evil? How could so many even beyond Penn State have endorsed this book by Sandusky and not have sensed something was wrong? How could Amazon.com and The Penn State Bookstore still have been promoting it as of this weekend? [Note: Amazon seems to have either taken off their inventory, or sold out, as of now.]
In his own words below:
As I read the Grand Jury report, I found myself baffled by why Sandusky seemed to choose public places for his crimes. Wasn't he concerned about being caught? Did he want to be caught? Was it (as it turned out for so long) just his assumption that he would be protected, no matter what he did?
"My father probably spoke the most truthful words about me that had ever been spoke," he writes. " 'Jer,' he said, 'you could mess up a free lunch.' ... I thrived on testing the limits of others and I enjoyed taking chances in danger."
What an odd thing for a father to say, and a son to repeat, as an acknowledged, self-definition... And/ but it would seem that the danger was an "enjoyable" part of his crimes. And, his motivation?
After founding his charity, one night Sandusky was talking to two Second Mile boys who had rebelled against their foster parents. The foster father "grabbed me around the back of my shoulders and he made me do something when I didn't want to do it," one boy told Sandusky. "Do you ever grab your kids like that?"
" 'No, I don't grab my kids like that,' " Sandusky answered. " 'I grab them like this.' With that, I put my hands gently around their throat.
"I could tell they were totally confused," Sandusky wrote. "Both boys had a scared look in their eyes." [pennlive.com]
Power. over. others -- and he derives enjoyment in seeing others' recognition of this power and their being fearful of his power over them.
But, how could he stand to live such an inauthentic life?
"I believe I live a good part of my life in a make-believe world," Sandusky wrote in one of the final chapters. "I enjoyed pretending as a kid, and I love doing the same as an adult with these kids."
It seems that he's not interested, at all, in being an authentic, whole human being. He actually "love[s]" his pretending, and his solution for asserting some wholeness in his life was to project his fantasies into the lives of children he had control over, thereby shattering their lives.
Weren't those close to him aware of his inauthenticity?
In another forward to Sandusky's book, Keith "Kip" Richeal calls Sandusky a "story-teller."
"One of the best," Richeal wrote. "More often than not, there is Jerry's version of the story and then there is what really happened." Pittsburgh Tribune on-line edition
Well, yes, it would seem that others did recognize that he was not fully a truthful or true person. But many nonetheless supported and even endorsed him. Even as late as 2008, Joe Paterno had this to say about him:
"I always felt that Jerry had two loves: One was obviously his ability, his wanting to help younger people in The Second Mile and being a head coach," Paterno said in a 2008 news conference. "He could have been a head coach a couple places, but he really he backed away because they were going to ask him to give up some things in The Second Mile." CNN
Quite frankly, I don't know WHAT to make of that quote by JoePA.
Regarding himself, Sandusky offered this:
"My time on this earth has always been unique," he writes. "At the times when I found myself searching for maturity, I usually came up with insanity. That's the way it is in the life of Gerald Arthur Sandusky."
Insanity? No. I don't think he's insane. I think the better term for what he is, is evil ...
But like all the other times I've tried my best to understand evil, I find myself even more bewildered by "it" .... and even as I find anwers to the questions that fill my mind -- I find that I can't fully comprehend the answers I can find. It's almost as if evil itself is so alien, so "other," that by it's nature it's able to throw a cloak over itself and throw a disconnect switch in others when it is glimpsed.
Even Jack McCallum, an experienced journalist who interviewed Sandusky, in his reflective piece on SI.com, seems left musing:
More to the point and most obviously, I had no suspicions about anything untoward going on with Sandusky or Second Mile. I remember that I didn't particularly like the man -- he seemed a little strange and detached and not at all joyful about what he was doing -- but none of that tipped my cynical believe-the-worst-about-anyone-until-proven-otherwise journalistic dial toward high alert.
[my emphasis added]