Just a week before he died, in a YouTube video titled ‘HUGE Epstein BOMBSHELL!…’, Kirk used the Jerry Sandusky case as a cautionary tale.
Kirk mentions Sandusky (3:28): “You saw this with the Jerry Sandusky case in Penn State. You got to be very, very careful with situations like this, because you can get a bandwagon effect where a lot of people use half-truths to be able to get money from a guy that obviously had a lot of assets.”
And at (8:58): “And that’s the problem. This happens way too often in situations like this is you see a gold rush… from Sandusky to there’s like 50 examples.”
Kirk did not discuss the facts of the Sandusky case. Instead, he uses it to support a point he makes about the Jeffrey Epstein case and “victims” coming forward.
Kirk’s argument is:
The media is desperate to link Donald Trump to Epstein and is failing.
While there are genuine victims of Epstein, the current legal (overly victim-centric) environment attracts “opportunists.”
He warns against a “bandwagon effect” or “gold rush” where people make false or exaggerated claims to get money (from a compensation fund) or to ruin reputations.
Kirk uses the Sandusky case as an example of what he claims happens in high-profile sex crime cases: a “gold rush” of false accusations motivated by money.
He drew a parallel between Sandusky and Epstein. He implies that in both instances, the presence of a wealthy target (Penn State’s pretrial announcements that it had money for victims, Epstein’s estate) led to people (with civil lawyers guiding them) making claims that were not truthful for financial gain.
Kirk used Sandusky as a shorthand for a phenomenon I believe occurred: a rush to judgment where public hysteria and financial incentive led to a wrongful conviction.
In his video Kirk was mainly talking about Epstein. He did not make an argument about Sandusky’s innocence.
He pointed to the Sandusky case as an example of how money can corrupt justice to bolster his skepticism of some of the current Epstein victim testimonies.
Kirk’s warning resonates because the Sandusky case perfectly illustrates his “gold rush” theory. The Sandusky conviction relied on the testimony of eight adult men, all of whom received settlements from Penn State ranging from $1.5 to $20 million. There was no physical evidence, and not a single accuser reported the abuse as a child.
One of the most glaring flaws involved the only eyewitness. Mike McQueary, who collected $9.7 million, changed his story about what he saw (later heard) in the showers. The jury ultimately acquitted Sandusky on the most serious charge related to McQueary’s testimony.
The PA Attorney General’s Office wrote an indictment alleging Mike McQueary witnessed Jerry Sandusky raping a boy of about 10 years old in the showers at Penn State,
The alleged victim in that shower incident, a man named Allan Myers, came forward before the trial to swear under oath that Sandusky had never abused him. To prevent the jury from hearing this, prosecutors colluded with Myers’ civil attorney, Andrew Shubin, to hide Myers during the trial.
Allan Myers with Jerry Sandusky.
For his silence, Myers was later paid a $6.9 million settlement.
This isn’t just a question of unreliable memory; it is direct evidence of a system incentivizing accusations and suppressing exonerating evidence.
Kirk invoked ‘Jerry Sandusky’ as shorthand for this phenomenon: accusations driven by money, led by civil attorneys and media hysteria. He believed the Epstein case triggerred a similar ‘gold rush.’
The difference is that while Epstein never faced a trial, Jerry Sandusky was convicted in a trial that I believe was fundamentally corrupted by the very financial incentives Kirk warned about.
Sandusky remains in the State Correctional Institution at Laurel Highlands in Somerset, Pennsylvania.
