by Barry Bozeman
This could really change everything for PSU in the Sandusky case. and this should truly concern all PSU alumni, students, and supporters. Court paperwork filed Monday, by prosecutors says the alleged sexual incident McQueary claims to have seen between Sandusky and a young boy in a locker room shower didn’t actually happen the Friday before spring break in 2002. It happened Feb. 9, 2001, about 13 months earlier. This puts at least part of the case beyond the statute of limitations.
McQueary's words and credibility are the reasons that former Athletic Director Tim Curley and former Vice President Gary Schultz are charged with perjury and failure to report a crime and led to the firing of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. The case against the university administrators hinges on McQueary who's credibility has been attacked in public.
As defense attorneys for Sandusky, Curley and Schultz — all of whom staunchly proclaim their innocence — pick apart the case, this detail about McQueary’s time line has bubbled to the surface. At the December preliminary hearing for Curley and Schultz, their attorneys asked McQueary about the time of the incident. He stood by spring 2002.
Joe Amendola, raised the issue shortly after Sandusky was first charged in November. He said a man came to his law firm, claiming to be the boy prosecutors call Victim Two that McQueary saw in the shower. The man told him nothing sexual happened, and that any contact was playful. He remembered the incident, Amendola said, because Sandusky told him Penn State officials might be calling him about it.
Attorneys for Schultz and Curley say 2001 would put at least one count against their clients beyond the statue of limitations.
Their counsel stated: "The Commonwealth charged this case before it knew the facts. Now, it is clear that Mike McQueary was wrong in so adamantly insisting that the incident happened the Friday before Spring Break in 2002. Whether or not Mr. McQueary’s insistence was the result of faulty memory, or questionable credibility, there is no dispute that the statute of limitations has expired [on failing to report child sexual abuse] and it will be dismissed."
Amendola said earlier this year that the discrepancy affects McQueary’s credibility. If he’s wrong about the date, what else did he get wrong? "I don’t know if it’s a lie as opposed to faulty memory, and if it’s faulty memory, what else has he misremembered?" Amendola said.
Amendola said he believes it’s possible that McQueary, during questioning by police, prosecutors or the grand jury, convinced himself that it was 2002. Sandusky has publicly denied anything inappropriate happened in that shower, but has admitted to showering playfully with young boys after workouts. The case of Victim Two has always been a point of attack for Amendola.
He has said the entire case against his client relies on McQueary, speculating that when troubled former Second Mile campers heard that Penn State was involved, they saw dollar signs and piled onto a case based around a weak allegation made by McQueary.
Prosecutors still haven’t identified the alleged Victim Two, leading Amendola to believe he does not exist. Instead it’s more likely that he found the man police called Victim Two, and he was no victim at all. He is expected to call to the stand a man who says that in 2001, he was taking an innocent shower with Sandusky, and several days later Sandusky called to tell him that Curley might want to ask him about it, because someone saw something that made them uncomfortable.
This report is seriously damaging to the prosecution as far as McQueary goes and that was by far the most damaging part of this for PSU. I expect to see the perjury charges dismissed and the Victim 2 charges removed before trial and that means PSU was dragged through a lot of this mud for next to nothing. This means JoPa's firing was totally wrong along with the 10 million spent on having to repair the PSU image. What an incredible mess.