The allegations regarding Victims 5, 4, and 3 are of child abuse, not merely inappropriate but legal activity. These three alleged victims are now adults, and, indeed, have been adults for some years. In these three cases, the alleged abuses occurred prior to or at the same time as the extensive police investigation of Sandusky in 1998. Yet the District Attorney did not prosecute. Now the only cases we know the DA examined in 1998 are those of alleged victims 6 and B.K. And since there is no reason in the Grand Jury Presentment to think that the DA was other than honorable, one reasonable conclusion, so long as we are not privy to the police investigation, is that the police investigation produced no credible evidence of abuse of Victims 5, 4, and 3, or anyone else. So how did the Grand Jury learn of these three persons, now adults, who allege abuse more than ten years ago? And why were these persons apparently silent for all the intervening years? The Presentment does not say. But we do know that the Grand Jury investigated Sandusky for some years. During that time it is almost certain that the basic nature of the investigation became widely known among people currently or previously associated with The Second Mile. So there are a number of plausible reasons for these alleged victims to come forward now. Maybe they are "getting on the bus," hoping for a big-dollar judgment in a planned lawsuit. Or maybe they have recovered memory of abuse that never happened. Or maybe they were actually abused. We do not know, and the Grand Jury Presentment does not clear it up for us. But the failure of these alleged victims to come forward earlier does not favor their veracity. And they have a significant reason to lie: money.
The allegations regarding Victim 8 was witnessed, we are told, by someone who now suffers from dementia, and neither he nor persons he spoke to at the time reported the incident to authorities. This means that the only evidence now available is hearsay unless the alleged victim is found and will testify. But if he is found, all the problems just discussed relating to alleged victims 5, 4, and 3 will be problems for alleged victim 8.
The allegations regarding Victim 2 were made by McQueary, and are discussed at length above. My conclusion is that there is no reason to doubt McQueary's honesty, but his accuracy may be questioned.
This leaves only allegations regarding Victim 1. The Grand Jury allegations against Sandusky regarding Victim 1 are indecent fondling and oral sex. I suspect that many of the activities called indecent fondling, inappropriate as they are, probably would not be considered crimes if they were not accompanied by the charge of oral sex or other criminal genital contact. Proving oral sex or criminal genital contact, however, is likely to be a "he said, he said" contest seeing that the Grand Jury does not claim for any of the witnesses it cites that they saw or were able to see any of the alleged criminal genital contact, much less oral sex. These witnesses can only testify to close contact that can reasonably be considered inappropriate in some cases, but non-criminal in all cases.
"He said, he said" is likely to be at the center of all the charges against Sandusky except in the cases of Victims 2 and 8 where third parties alleging the criminal conduct are known. But as already explained, these third-party witnesses are compromised in one way or another.
A closer look at what the Presentment says regarding Victim 1.
I begin with three statements from the Presentment:
Victim 1 stopped taking Sandusky's phone calls and had his mother tell Sandusky he was not home when Sandusky called. This termination of contact with Sandusky occurred in the spring of 2008, when Victim 1 was a freshman in high school.
"
Steven Turchetta testified that he was an assistant principal and the head football coach at the high school attended by Victim 1. He testified that Sandusky was a volunteer assistant football coach. ... In the 2008 season, Sandusky was a full-time volunteer coach
"
Turchetta became aware of Victim l's allegations regarding sexual assault by Sandusky when the boy's mother called the school to report it. Sandusky was barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter was reported to authorities as mandated by law. (Emphasis added.)
Notice first that Victim 1 cut off contact with Sandusky in the spring of 2008 while he was a freshman in high school; this included not taking calls from Sandusky. Next notice that Sandusky was a full-time volunteer coach in the 2008 football season, which I believe starts in the fall of 2008. If this is correct, then Sandusky was barred from the school district, not in the spring of 2008, when the alleged victim cut off contact, but some months later. This suggests that the boy's mother called the school to report alleged sexual assault no earlier than the fall of 2008, and perhaps as late as the spring or summer of 2009. We may suspect the summer of 2009 because the Presentment seems to tell us that calls from the Sandusky home phone and cell phone were made to the alleged victims home phone as late as July 2009. (More on the calls below.) It therefore appears that the boy's mother did not report alleged sexual assault for at least six months after her son cut off contact, and perhaps not for as much as fifteen months or more.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
