Victims and Questions Go to Trial

My hope is this Fanpost will give us a different direction not yet covered in depth in our conversations here on BSD. We have not as yet focused on the 10 "victims" in this case and what we know about the allegations they will bring outside of the oft discussed unknown "victim" 2. We know "victim" 6 is the well documented and heavily investigated 1998 shower and "victim" 8 is the unknown 2000 incident involving the janitor with dementia. So let us look closely at the other 7 allegations, where and when they occurred and how that squares with Attorney General Kelly making this all about PSU.
So these things interest me - particularly the decision by the AG to attack PSU and Joe Paterno
1) Everyone should pay close attention to the dates, people and places involved in these lists, Remember the outrage at PSU and Joe Paterno stems from the idea that many victims would have been spared if MM or Paterno Curley or Schultz had involved the police over MM's 2 three second glances? Well as it happens only two of these "victims" suffered abuse after 2001 - Victim 1 who it took 3 years of investigation to bring charges and victim 9 whose alleged abuse came off campus in 2006. Two is 2 too many but nothing like the idea put forward by the AG. My view is that an investigation by police of the 2001 incident would have ended like the 1998 incident - a questionable shower but nothing criminal. AG Kelly destroyed the reputations of many good people and cost a great university 10 million dollars and a tsunami of grief and degradation. So screw her and her despicable lack of vision or her malice aforethought.
2) How many of these charges are simply designed to pad the list in order to make a case based on a larger number of alleged victims? As I see it only 4 of the 10 are the type of serious charges that would be prosecuted on their own merits. In 2 of 10 cases there is no know victim (2 & 8), in 4 others the allegations are "blurry" or vague (3 & 5) and in a couple not necessarily criminal (6 & 7) *a hand on a thigh or shorts. These less than adequate allegations seem specifically designed to sully the reputation of PSU.
3) After the Feb 2001 incident witnessed by MM 5 years passed before there are the allegations concerning victims 1 and 9. Does that make any sense? How does a dedicated pedophile go for 5 or 6 years without any activity? Did the investigation skip any comprehensive questioning of Second Mile parents and former participants? The only known victims of the 2000's are 1 and 9 from 2006 thru 2008.
I hope this gives us something fresh for contemplation and comment. The other stuff has gotten pretty stale and repetitive. Maybe this will give us a fresh perspective to discuss from the perspective of these victims and the trial.
First we have the Factbox from Reuters: that can be compared to the presentment information on 9 and 10 HERE and on one thru eight HERE. Remember that a presentment is designed to get an indictment and recall what was said about MM's two 3 second glances. So these are the strongest allegations the prosecution could make at the time and that likely has not changed. So how does this stack up in your mind knowing that?

VICTIM 1 - The boy alleges Sandusky indecently fondled him and they performed oral sex on each other. He was 11 or 12 when he met Sandusky in 2005 or 2006 through the Second Mile.. An elementary-school wrestling coach discovered Victim 1 and Sandusky having physical contact in a weight room in 2007. This is what finally brought on the presentment in 2011.

Alleged victim one took his story to then AG Tom Corbett back in 2007/8 and Corbett took over 2 years with one investigator before becoming Governor and turning over the investigation to LInda Kelly. My opinion is there must be some serious problem with his testimony because of the long delay taken by the AG's office to bring charges. Note these events did not involve PSU and this is one of the first incidents along with Victim 9 after Feb 9, 2001 - the date of the alleged victim 2 incident. Wonder why there are no victims between Feb 2001 and 2006?

VICTIM 2 - Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant, said he saw Sandusky in a shower with a boy about 10 years old on February 9, 2001. The date was originally reported as 2002. The incident was not reported to police or child welfare services. The boy has not been identified. Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley face charges of perjury for differing accounts of a decade old 10 or 15 min meeting.

We have gone over the Perjury Hearing Testimony of Mike McQueary in nauseating detail so often we all know of the 2 or 3 slapping sounds and the 2 three second glances of JS backside that blew up in the face of Penn State's Board of Trustees as they removed Coach Paterno and President Spanier after AG Kelly decided to charge AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz with perjury based on nine no ten year old recollections of a 10 to 15 minute conversation between them and MM.

NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED and PSU assisted The Second Mile in it's mission to help at risk kids. For this PSU has suffered outrageous fortune/ This deliberate misguided AG's tactics destroyed The Second Mile, Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Gram Spanier and the reputation of Penn State - none of which was required to remove JS from circulation.

My opinion: Since no victim 2 exists and MM only has suspicion and no proof of his allegation this charge will either be dropped or result in a not guilty verdict due to unquestionable reasonable doubt. These charges should never have been brought and the cost has been disastrous for PSU. Only Jack Raykovitz and the Second Mile were in a position to find a pattern in JS activities. If this had focused on JS and Jack Raykovitz justice would have been done without the cost to a great institution. I doubt a valuable charity could have been saved even under new leadership but it's dead and gone now anyway.

VICTIM 3 - Met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 2000, when he was in seventh or eighth grade. He testified that Sandusky bearhugged him and initiated physical contact in showers. Sandusky touched him through his athletic shorts when he slept over at the older man's home.

This is a charge that will be difficult to prove sexual intent. My opinion is that it is only being considered to add another "victim" to the list in order to establish a pattern. Verdict probably not guilty on these charges.

VICTIM 4 - Testified he repeatedly underwent involuntary sexual intercourse and indecent assault. The assaults allegedly took place on campus, at Toftrees, a resort where the football team stayed before home games, and at bowl games in 1998 and 1999. Sandusky initiated physical contact through a "soap battle" in a shower. The boy was lavished with gifts.

This is likely one of the 3 or 4 most damaging accounts that will serve up JS to a life in prison unless this witness is very compromised but there is still an 11 to 12 year distance between his experience and what will be his testimony.

VICTIM 5 - Testified that he met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 1995 or 1996, when he was 7 or 8. He said Sandusky allegedly took the victim's hand and placed it on his genitals in a locker room shower. He contends his memory is "blurry" in one account.

This is another curious charge that seems designed to make the evidence more damaging by quantity instead of quality. Very difficult to see this resulting in much other than that. This "victim" has claimed "blurry memory" on this event so reasonable doubt is assured it seems?

VICTIM 6 - Met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 1994 or 1995, when he was 7 or 8 years old. Sandusky lathered the boy with soap and bearhugged him in football showers in 1998.The boy's mother reported the incident to university police. It was investigated but no criminal charges were filed. The mother confronted Sandusky while police eavesdropped, and Sandusky told her: "I wish I were dead."

Victim 6 is the 1998 incident thoroughly investigated by police and child services. This is not likely to result in a guilty verdict given the evidence gathered at the time an the failure to prosecute. This appears to be a shower only incident.

VICTIM 7 - Testified he met Sandusky through the Second Mile in 1994 when he was about 10. Sandusky bearhugged him and cracked his back, showered with him, and put his hand on the boy's thigh.

Victim 7's experiences are not criminal and it is curious that they are part of this except to prejudice the jury. My opinion is this should be excluded and dismissed along with 'victim' 2. What is the criminal element here?

VICTIM 8 - A janitor saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy in a football locker room in fall 2000, another employee has testified. The incident was not reported. The boy's identity is unknown. The janitor has dementia and is incompetent to testify.

Victim 8 is another unknown "victim" and the evidence is hearsay and will possibly not be heard in the end. If it is it will be as a second hand account of excitable utterances. Tough to get a guilty verdict on this.

VICTIM 9 - Met Sandusky after he started attending Second Mile activities in 2004. He stayed overnight in the Sandusky home several times between the ages of 12 and 15 starting 2 years after he started or 2006. He described a pattern of sexual assault over a period of years, including oral and anal sex. Sandusky gave the boy gifts and money.

If 'victim' 9 is credible this is the most important testimony in the case. Note this victim seems to run concurrent with Victim 1 some 5 years after the alleged 2001 incident reported by MM. This one has the best chance of success for prosecutors in my opinion because it's fresh and not complicated by the long investigation suffered by victim one.

VICTIM 10 - He became involved with the Second Mile in 1997 at age 10. He testified that he and Sandusky performed oral sex on each other, and Sandusky bought him gifts and took him to football games.

Victim 10 brings the the total of serious charges to 4 of the 10 victims The other 6 have serious problems and only 1, 4, 9 and 10 seem provable beyond a reasonable doubt if the witnesses are credible.
Here is a link to a list from another publication with slightly different language.
When I read over these charges and think about the Attorney General and Governor's reprimands to PSU and Paterno, Curley and Schultz I am angered. She pointed a cannon at PSU and fired several shots with her indictment's of Curley and Schultz for perjury on recollections of a 15 minute conversation a decade past. The AG purposely made PSU look like a den of enablers because two administrators and a football coach did not find MM's two 3 second glances of a naked man in a shower to be definitive evidence of a crime worthy of police involvement.
She didn't even point a revolver at The Second Mile where Sandusky was employed and where he accessed all of his victims or at Jack Raykovitz who was the true enabler of Jerry Sandusky who should have been concerned and vigilant in protection of the 2nd Mile kids.
My contempt for Linda Kelley and the Governor grows every time I see PSU Sex Scandal referenced when any real PSU involvement ended in 1999 when Sandusky retired and this should always be known as The Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal.
Will the AG screw around and lose a guilty verdict because she insists on dragging out 6 unprovable victim's allegations to just to spite PSU while failing to focus on the 4 most serious victim's accounts? Will the jury be more likely to view these superfluous extra "victims" as a pattern OR will they view this as a display of the ineptitude of the prosecution thinking if 6 of these are wrong then how can any be right? Since the pool comes from nearby PSU will it be a help or hindrance to the prosecutors to have damaged the university?
No matter what happens I think PSU was sorely misused and abused. So take a look at the charges and offer your comments and vote in the poll all recs, votes, shares and comments are appreciated as usual even as much as this pisses me off. There are most likely some legitimate victims here to consider and even with the presumption of innocence we have to be concerned for their well being. There is a lot to consider and ponder going into this trial week.
UPDATE: a new list of victim characterizations is now available HERE.
A BADLY BOTCHED INVESTIGATION? What do you think about this?
Given the almost 3 years from early 2009 when Tom Corbett as AG started the investigation until Nov 5, 2011 when Sandusky was arrested and charged does it not seem odd that only 4 potential victims were identified. Victims 9 & 10 surfaced after the initial charges were published.
Did investigators not question the staff at The Second Mile to determine which kids seemed to draw the special attention of Jerry Sandusky? Was there not some attempt to go through Second Mile records and contact parents of the Second Mile kids to discover which boys were overnight guests at the Sandusky's or boys who attended games or workouts with the former coach? Was the Second Mile not cooperative? Or were investigators discouraged from using them as a source? No matter what the AG owes an explanation to the public and the victims.

1. Victim 1 started the Corbett Investigation with serious allegations.
2. Victim 6 was the 1998 investigation of a shower only
3. Victim 8 is the janitors account *still unknown victim
4. Victim 2 McQueary shower incident *still unknown victim - This leaving the 4 below as new
5. Victim 3 is the hand on shorts in 2000
6. Victim 7 is the hand on thigh in 1995
7. Victim 5 is the blurry memory of a 1995 shower incident
8. Victim 4 gives serious allegations of sexual assault over a couple of years in 98 and 99 *by the way the word is out that the FEDs are going to make Victim 4 a Federal Case

Dissected in this way given a 3 year investigation we get one serious sets of allegations by a known alleged victim - Victim 4. Now there has been a story that potentially 6 additional victims have been found but no additional charges have been brought but these 6 are post 11/5/11. This is somewhat odd given the assertions of AG Kelly and the press about Sandusky. {once again a disclaimer for those who think this exercise is somehow pro-Sandusky - it isn't. I'm just trying to get a handle on the investigation and it's results in a way that makes sense } Is this why there are no victims from Feb 2001 to 2006?
This does not mean that Jerry Sandusky should not go to prison for life for either Victim 1 or Victim 4.This calls into question the competence of the Attorney General's investigation and perhaps offers an explanation for the actions of the Attorney General in going after PSU, Curley & Schultz over Mike McQueary's two 3 second glances. What do you think?