One of Jerry Sandusky's key accusers now swears he was coached by Pennsylvania prosecutors into giving false testimony — and will recant in court next month, raising the possibility that the state convicted a man on manufactured evidence.
The claim cuts to the bone of the Sandusky prosecution. If the accuser known as Victim 10 follows through, it means prosecutors Joe McGettigan and Frank Fina used what court records describe as "psychological manipulation" and "investigative pressure" to build their case — and that a man serving 30 to 60 years may have been railroaded. The state failed these boys once by not protecting them in the first place. It may have failed them again by turning their trauma into a prosecutorial weapon.
Victim 10, identified in court documents as R.R., filed a sworn affidavit stating that throughout the pretrial process, prosecutors convinced him that trauma may have "fragmented" his memory and that he "could safely affirm details I did not fully recall." "I was assured this was common and even expected," the affidavit states. He now plans to tell the court that Sandusky did not sexually abuse him.
Sandusky's new defense team is expected to argue at a Sept. 8 evidentiary hearing in Centre County that he received ineffective counsel and that prosecutors coached victims into making false allegations. Victim 10's estranged wife, according to the New York Post, could corroborate that her ex-husband was not abused by Sandusky.
Investigative journalist Frank Parlato, who has investigated the case for three years and is producing a documentary, told 6abc Philadelphia he will also testify. "I believe 100% he is innocent and I didn't begin that way," Parlato said. He claims the mother of another victim will also testify that her son "was coached from a position of 'Jerry didn't do anything to me' to 'Jerry molested me' by the same prosecutors."
Sandusky, 82, spoke by phone from state prison in Somerset County on Friday. "I am an innocent man, and I have been convicted by so many people with their own personal agendas, and this was an opportunity to take advantage of a tremendous financial gain," he told 6abc. He claimed payouts from Penn State incentivized accusers: "Money became such a huge motive for everybody, and they incentivized the accusers and led them. Without leading, the accusers in the beginning didn't make allegations."
The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office did not respond to the Post's request for comment. 6abc reported the office released a statement Friday saying only that "the defense will be requesting a new trial during" the hearing — essentially confirming the schedule and nothing else.
The Post framed Sandusky's claims through maximum editorial disdain — "the disgraced coach whined" — while burying the substance of Victim 10's affidavit below repeated reminders of the original charges. 6abc gave straighter coverage, letting Parlato's testimony claim and the coaching allegations breathe without editorial interference.
Sandusky was convicted on 45 counts of child sexual abuse involving 10 boys he met through The Second Mile, his charity for at-risk youth. He has repeatedly lost prior bids for a new trial. This one has a witness willing to swear, under oath, that the state put words in his mouth.
The question now is whether a Centre County judge is willing to follow where that testimony leads — or whether the system closes ranks again.
