Wednesday, November 8

McQueary's Story Doesn't Fit With Jerry's Showering Ritual

The ritualistic nature of Sandusky showering with boys makes it highly unlikely that Mike saw any physical contact in the Lasch Building showers

Ray Blehar

November 8, 2017, 10:33 AM EST

Jerry Sandusky's showering with boys was a ritualistic behavior that followed an identical pattern each time -- down to the shower heads he would select.   And that pattern casts more doubt on what Mike McQueary witnessed in the Lasch Building's Staff Locker Room.

According to internationally recognized sex crimes expert James Clemente, sex offenders like Jerry Sandusky engage in repeated, almost identical patterns of ritualistic behavior.  In his report for the Paterno family, Clemente wrote (my emphasis added):

"Child molesters’ grooming and offending behavior can be broken down into M.O. (method of operation) and ritual. While their M.O. can develop and evolve over time and will typically be tailored and responsive to the vulnerabilities and reactions of each individual child victim, offenders also engage in repeated, almost identical, patterns of ritualistic behaviorExperience tells offenders which patterns of behavior most successfully groom and seduce targeted children and help them get away with their crimes. Their inner fantasies, needs and desires dictate their ritualistic behavior."


"One of Sandusky’s primary grooming and offending techniques was showering with boys as a way to get the boys into a naked and vulnerable position. Once in the shower, Sandusky typically engaged in a pattern of activity that allowed him to have physical contact with the boys."

This drawing from Victim #5's initial interview included this rendering of he and Sandusky's position in the shower.  That positioning would not have afforded McQueary the ability to see much of anything.

Going back to Clemente's behavioral analysis, Sandusky would have always selected that positioning in the shower because it provided him with the least opportunity to be observed if an intruder were to enter the locker room.  Moreover, serial offenders commit crimes over long periods of time because they are very adept at not being observed.  As such, Sandusky would have undoubtedly selected the location in the showers that was obstructed from view.

As reported in August 2015, former Penn State University President Rodney Erickson's notebook described the positioning of Sandusky and Victim 2, noting that the "kid looked out from behind the obstruction" and that he was positioned in the "far right" of the showers with the "other 3 behind."  See below:

The positioning above conforms with the diagram drawn by Victim 5.

Erickson's notebook version of events conforms with the June 2012 testimony of Dr. Jonathan Dranov, who stated that a boy "looked around" and "an arm reached out and pulled the boy back."

Former PSU President Graham Spanier's recalled that he was told (by former PSU Athletic Director Timothy Curley) that the witness "was not sure what he saw because it was around a corner and indirect."  

The "far left" position -- upon entry to the locker room -- is the only place that would have provided a line of sight from the locker area and/or through the mirror into the showers.  As such, Mike falsely reported that Sandusky and the boy were in that location to lend credence to his version of events.

There is significant evidence to support that Sandusky and Victim #2 were not in the location that Mike reported and they were unable to be observed while they were in the shower area.

In conclusion, McQueary's story of witnessing Sandusky in close contact or essentially "bear hugging" a boy in the showers was (is) a complete fabrication that was likely based on what the police and the Office of Attorney General knew about the 1998 incident.


  1. It is too bad this was not presented at trial so clearly as the angles described have always bothered me in relation to his McQuerry's story. I always thought an anime version of the shower incident would have been useful tracing McQuerry's footsteps to challenge his testimony as many of the things he "would of said" .........make no sense.

    1. David,
      Thanks for your comment.

      The defense team of Sandusky could have and should have said that Jerry always showered in the same location -- simply arguing that he was a creature of habit, as many people are. Victim 5's drawing was part of the trial exhibits. As such, the location argument may or may not have worked in terms of impeaching Mike's testimony.

  2. The defense should have had the jury tour the shower facility since it was so pivotal in the case. Drawings are just not as good as the actual, alleged crime scene.

    I don't know what the defenses for Sandusky, Spanier and PSU considered to impeach McQueary's testimony but I would have thought that they needed an acoustics expert to determine if it was even possible to hear slapping sounds through the locker room door above the shower noise.

    Another thing they might have done was to have two life size mannequins for Sandusky and the boy and asked Mike McQueary to pose them in the position he testified he saw them in during his 1 or 2 second glance. When they didn't fit as he claimed, that would have punched a big hole in his credibility.