Psychologist in 1998, Called Jerry Sandusky a ‘Likely Pedophile.’

NBC News is reporting that, in 1998, after an allegation against Jerry Sandusky, a psychologist informed police that Sandusky’s actions fit the profile of a pedophile.

The campus police department’s investigatory report stated there was “an encounter” where Sandusky was accused of showering naked with an 11 year-old boy on the Penn State campus.

Alycia Chambers, the State College psychologist, who interviewed the child, and who provided him with counseling , said:

“My consultants agree that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a `loving,’ `special’ relationship.”

Another psychologist, John Seasock, felt that Sandusky had not abused the boy, and did not agree with the diagnosis of Sandusky fitting the profile of a pedophile.

Prosecutors subsequently decided to not charge Sandusky, and closed the case until the recent accusations and indictment against Sandusky, who now faces over fifty counts of child sexual assault.

(Jerry Sandusky in his 1966 Penn State year book photo)

“The 1998 allegation was the first known complaint made to authorities about Sandusky. A woman called the Penn State police department, saying she was troubled after her 11-year-old son told her he had showered naked with Sandusky on campus.

Prosecutors say Sandusky lathered up the boy — known as Victim 6 in the state’s current criminal case — bear-hugged him naked from behind, and picked him up and put his head under the shower. Detectives say that later, with police secretly listening in, Sandusky told the boy’s mother the joint shower had been a mistake, and blurted: “I wish I were dead.”

The woman’s complaint triggered a separate review by the state Department of Public Welfare, which found no indication of abuse by Sandusky.”

Newsflash to the adult world: When a grown man showers naked with a little boy he is supposed to be mentoring, and hugs him while naked, and then lifts the boy up while naked –in order to get close to the boy’s buttocks and genitals– it is child sexual abuse.

Not only was the boy made to feel uncomfortable, and probably had to look at an erection on Sandusky, but under the law in many states, what Sandusky did was touch a child for sexual gratification, which is a felony in many states.

Seasock, who worked with Centre County Office of Children and Youth Services, had interviewed the child for about an hour, and after that short time period, he concluded that Sandusky did not groom the boy, or engage in any inappropriate sexual behavior with the child.

“All the interactions reported by (the boy) can be typically defined as normal between a healthy adult and a young adolescent male,” Seasock wrote.”

I think someone ought to check Seasock for pedophilic tendencies.

“Seasock, however, did not review Chambers’ report or prior interviews with the boy before submitting his own report, the police report indicates, nor did he elicit key details, including the fact that Sandusky had kissed the boy and told him he loved him.”

The fact that Sandusky was given continued access to children at Penn State is criminal.

“Chambers told NBC in an interview that she was horrified to learn that Sandusky allegedly continued assaulting boys long after she warned Penn State authorities about him.”I was horrified to know that there were so many other innocent boys who had been subject to this, who had their hearts and minds confused, their bodies violated. It’s unspeakable,” she said.

Chambers told NBC her 1998 investigation found “behavior that was consistent with a predator, a male predator, a pedophile.”

I hope those families sue Penn State for millions. It is evident that you can’t get human beings in charge of the safety and well-being of children to do the right thing, so why not hit them where it hurts most? Sue mothers who don’t protect their children, sue religious institutions, sue colleges, sue bus drivers who fail to report a threat to a child….sue the adults who don’t give a damn about children.

Adults don’t have any moral code of ethics these days, so you might as well hit them where it will do the most damage, in the only place they care about….their bank accounts.

_____________________________________________________________

startribune.com

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Child Abuse, child molestation, child sexual abuse, Crime, rape and abuse and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Psychologist in 1998, Called Jerry Sandusky a ‘Likely Pedophile.’

  1. manuela says:

    Well, without being a specialist in the psychology domain…I could have said the same thing about this guy. All i needed in order to diagnose this person is just common sense. But, I guess, some people lost it on the way.

  2. little nel says:

    According to what I gleaned from this post, it is not illegal to act like a “likely pedophile” when children are involved. If it were, then Jerry Sandusky would have been prosecuted after the investigation in 1998.

    He knew that he would not be prosecuted because his pre-selected alibi’s were “reasonable.” All he had to do was just clarify “the facts” to the police and he would be exonerated and praised for his concern and truthfulness.

    The mother and child were over-reacting to Jerry’s hygiene instruction because they were dishonest. The kid was dirty and Jerry wanted him to be cleansed. Only a mother who wanted to cover up her own neglect would complain to the police.

    The people who had the power to prosecute Jerry in1998 backed off because they couldn’t win a conviction and they would be held up to ridicule by Jerry’s peers because a “troubled child” could not tell the truth as well as Jerry could. Besides, the whole case would cost a lot of money and cause enormous problems for everyone involved.

    What did we learn? Jerry did not stop abusing boys until he was finally arrested and charged after a wide-spread cover up by Penn State officials. Jerry got the protection, not the victims.

  3. tifed3 says:

    I ran into all these remarks and obstacles while trying to protect my children – I heard a lot about red flags and all the behaviors I was witnessing were in my head or innocent mistakes.

    • Alethea says:

      Well three cheers to you anyway for trying to protect your children. You are courageous to even try. I am sorry that the system failed you. Or did it? Were you able to eventually get them protected?

Comments are closed.