STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (WTAJ) — Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State coach, and convicted child molester, has filed an amended motion for a new trial, citing that witnesses had their memories “altered,” according to a release from his attorney.

Sandusky, and his attorney, Al Lindsay of Lindsay Law Firm in Butler, claim that prosecutors were able to alter the memories of those who testified against Sandusky. They allegedly used something referred to as “Recovered Repressed Memories” (RRM), a technique that one expert in the field says is highly questionable.

It’s pointed out in the press release that they found evidence after the fact that one of the victims who testified about being molested by Sandusky gave an earlier statement to police and had nothing but nice things to say about the former coach.

Lindsay continued on by citing an expert in the field of RRM, licensed psychologist and attorney, R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., JD.

Dr. Barden claims, after analysis of testimonies, that the attorney and therapist interviewing witnesses were “engaged in an unethical and/or criminal scam to manipulate witnesses to produce ‘new memory claims of abuse’ and thus obtain large settlement sums in civil litigation,” the release reads.

More evidence submitted on behalf of Sandusky is the testimony of a man who posed as a victim and was subjected to the same RRM therapy. The ‘fake accuser’ was quoted as saying he was “shocked” and thought the whole thing was “BS.”

“I came as a fake accuser and [the lawyer] has changed my story. What makes me think he didn’t do this with everyone,” the accuser said.

The motion also cites an alleged “off-the-record” meeting in Dec. 2011 that included the trial judge, the district magistrate, one of Sandusky’s attorneys, and two prosecutors. Sandusky believes that this meeting was when they decided on a trial date, something they called a “death-march,” claiming the date was fast-tracked (June 2012), leaving the defense ill-prepared.

The motion goes on to question:

• Why would a trial judge conduct, or at least attend, an off-the-record meeting dealing with, among other things, the scheduling of a trial date prior to the preliminary hearing?
• Why would a trial judge discuss an arraignment date before the preliminary hearing?
• Why would a trial judge, as Dr. Barden puts it, put the case on a “death march” to trial in a
  matter of this magnitude?

Sandusky is suggesting one reason is a report from the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees that was used by the NCAA two weeks before singing a “Consent Decree” that imposed sanctions on the PSU football program, including a $60 million fine, post-season ban, and vacated wins.

Sandusky and his attorney suggest that without the quick timing of his trial, leading to his conviction, there would be no agreement between the NCAA and PSU meaning there would have been no football season in 2012 and likely many seasons after, ultimately costing the millions, if not billions of dollars.