Penn State has reached a settlement with the only Sandusky victim the jury found to be not credible.
Victim 5 accused Sandusky of forcing him to touch his genitals and attempting to grope him in a shower. The jury acquitted Sandusky of the indecent assault charge.
When I wrote Report 3, I was curious why Victim 5 was not believed by a jury who convicted on every other victim's allegations, therefore I attempted to reach juror Joshua Harper to find out about the jury's reasoning. My calls went unreturned.
As a result, I was left to hypothesize about the lone acquittal of a charge brought forth by a victim and it is likely that Victim 5's story made perfect sense when he was ten years-old, but absolutely no sense as a thirteen year old.
Timeframes and Locations of Crimes Changed, Story Not CredibleVictim 5 testified before the grand jury on June 17, 2011. In his grand jury testimony (page 17), he stated that the incident occurred in 1998 when he was between the ages of 8 and 10 years old. He stated he went to shower with Sandusky in the East Area Locker Room. Once in the shower, he looked back over his shoulder and saw Sandusky had an erection. He went on to state he did not understand the significance of it at the time but averted his gaze because he was uncomfortable. Victim 5 then stated Sandusky pinned him against a wall and took his hand and placed it on his erect penis. The boy then removed his hand and slid out of the shower.
In the Commonwealth’s opening statement, Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan referred to Victim 5 as a “ten year old boy” and detailed how he escaped from the shower room (Victim 5 was born on 8/8/1988).
However, during the trial, Victim 5 testified that he was 13 years old at the time of the incident and it occurred in 2001 in the Lasch Building. In that version of events, Victim 5 stated he had gone into the sauna with Sandusky, where Sandusky exposed himself. Then they proceeded to the showers, where again he stated he saw Sandusky with an erection but didn't understand the significance of it, and then the same series of events of being forced to touch Sandusky before sliding away.
While I can't be certain why the jury acquitted on the indecent assault charge, I suspect it was because it is not credible for a 13 year-old boy not to understand the significance of an erection.