Marcel Elfers is a Trial Run Master Profiler™ through handwriting and statement analysisJerry Sandusky, former coach at Penn State University, stands accused of sexually abusing young boys. The case has many far reaching consequences, including the firing of legendary coach Joe Paterno. The question is, with so many victims stepping forward and so many witnesses, is he defendable?
Sandusky's signature is not strongly revealing character traits consistent with the heinous allegations. What stands out is uncontrollable enthusiasm. This can interpreted as an inability to stop where others would. That is a great trait for a coach who needs to push his players and not so great for the described allegations.
Bob Costa interviewed Jerry Sandusky and asked questions that were very direct. Jerry Sandusky (JS) danced around many of the answer with common deceptive techniques.
Listen to the interview. With due respect to Bob Costa, who remained focused, direct and did not flinch asking the hard questions.
Common deceptive techniques used by JS are :
1. Repeat the question to buy time to buy time to think
2. High number of repeat word indicating sensitivity
3. High number of “uh’s” to buy time to think
4. High number of pauses
5. High number of word selections to imply denial of the charges without an actual denial.
1:59 Bob Costa (BC) asked JS about the McQueary incident in 2002. JS states “I would say that is false”. JS continues “Okay, we were showering and … and … horsing around and he actually turned all the showers on and was … uh .. was actually sliding across the floor and ..uh.. and we were … as I recall possibly like snapping a towel in horse play.
“Saying it is false” is not a denial.
Using “actually” is a comparison to something else. If you ask me “did you buy these shoes at Macy’s?” and I answer “Actually, I bought them at Kohl’s!”, the word "actually" compares the two stores. JS used “he actually turned all the showers on…” Was it JS who turned the showers on instead of the child to mask inevitable noises?
“as I recall possibly snapping a towel”. You either recall snapping a towel or you don’t. To “possibly” snap a towel means this is only one “possible fabricated answer”.
BC: Are you sexually attracted to under age boys?
JS: “Am I sexually attracted to underage boys? … [takes breath]…sexually attracted…you know…I…I enjoy young people… I …love to be around them …uhm…I…I.. but no…I am not sexually attracted to young boys.” We see points 1,2,3,4 and 5 all in one answer.
His attorney is remarkable as well. At 5:00 he is asked about the defense strategy and he replies:
“we expect we are going to have a number of kids, now how many of those so called …”
“We expect” shows he is not sure whether it will or not. Look at his eye movements while he is speaking. He looks up and to the right (our left) nine times. This suggests he is creating an answer and does not know facts.
BC to Joe Amendola (attorney) “Would you allow your own children to be alone with your client?”
He answers “I.. I… I believe in Jerry’s innocence… quite honestly, Bob … that’s why I am involved in the case”.
To “believe” in innocence is not saying he is innocent. To say “quite honestly” is emphasizing honesty without due cause and is a clue he thinks he is perceived as dishonest. Why does he feel dishonest when nobody implied that? Birds of a feather?
Look at the video and watch his eye movements again. A person who looks down and to the right (our left) is checking his emotional memory files. Most often the speaker does not feel good about the subject matter. That is in line with the subject matter being a sensitive issue to the attorney as the repeat “I…I…I “ shows.
It will be an interesting case to follow. With this much smoke, there must be a fire mixed with water, probably from “all the showers on”. Let the PD do it's job and Time Will Tell.