When the Jerry Sandusky scandal first broke, well several days after and the grand jury report had been released to the media, I actually spent the 20 minutes or so it took to read it. It was creepy, horrific, believable the more you saw his mannerisms on TV and heard him speak. Blech.
But one thing that really didn't sit right with me was on page 21 of the grand jury's findings. This: "Victim 7 had not had contact with Sandusky for nearly two years but was contacted by Sandusky and separately by Sandusky's wife and another Sandusky friend in the weeks prior to Victim 7's appearance before the grand jury. The callers left messages saying the matter was very important. Victim 7 did not return any phone calls."
So to me, this meant that Sandusky's wife "knew". She had to know. She was wanting to call and plead with Victim 7 or perhaps bribe him. In my mind, this is a woman who had bore no children - adopting all six of their children. Does this perhaps mean that they never had sexual relations? I mean, perhaps they did when they got married, but at some point, this woman KNEW her husband liked it with men/boys more than he did with her... so for appearances sake and because she was living a lavish lifestyle, she let him go about his business and likely, had flings along the way. Unless she's as much of a sociopath as he is, which could be the case. But I'm actually inclined to believe she was just spoiled, liked her life, had her needs met elsewhere, that they likely had some agreement. Sickeningly, it all seems likely.
And then today happened and new allegations. And I read this:
"The victim testified that on at least one occasion he screamed for help, knowing that Sandusky’s wife was upstairs, but no one ever came to help him,” the grand jury report said.
Dottie is her name. Spending money and living a lie is her game. As is ignoring the desperate pleas of a child in her own home. This woman knew - and likely turned up the TV in her bedroom while she took inventory of her shoes and chastity belts. Then again... When you look at the picture below, what do you see?
I see someone else who is perhaps confused about her own identity. Did they not have their own children because they couldn't conceive, or is it because the idea of sleeping with a man and carrying his child was repulsive to her? Okay - so maybe she's gay? So what? I really don't mean to go off on that tangent - if she's straight, great. If she's gay, great. If they had an understanding, fine. To a point. If they were together for appearances sake, fine. I guess. But to know that your one and only is doing the unspeakable with CHILDREN, that one of them is SCREAMING for help in your house and you ignore it? Well Dottie dear, you can't say enough Hail Mary's to save your soul - in my opinion. No "understanding" is worth compromising the innocence of a child. No money, status, ladies luncheon group, house, golf club membership... is worth standing up for this sick, vile, predator. But I guess Dorothy sees it differently.
Last thought: If Dot HAD given birth to any of her 6 children and really really known that bond - she'd never have stood for this. There are wonderful adoptive parents out there, I know, my husband was adopted and treated like their own. But in this case, it appears that the courts gave parental rights to two people who were doing it all for appearances, not because their hearts were in it to VALUE the life of a child. To PROTECT the children. To LOVE the children. Interestingly, none of their adopted children are out there playing the DENY DENY DENY - "my daddy was the best daddy there ever was" - game.
This real life soap opera is far from over... In the end though, he'll be dead - which is a fate too good for him. Sorry folks "forgiveness" just doesn't work for me in this case. Not for her either. She can't give a good reason why she wouldn't help that boy. (Those boys) And the soon to come "I didn't ever hear anything" is a C.O.S.
"Kate" out.
No comments:
Post a Comment