Who is the real Sandusky Victim 2? Does it Matter?

Note: Nowhere in this post will I use any victim names or identities. The point of this post is not to question whether someone is a victim of Jerry Sandusky, this man is indeed a victim. Whether he is 'Victim 2' is far from clear and that is the only point of this analysis. Jerry Sandusky likely had dozens of victims, some still unknown, and this man is one of them. Furthermore the identity of Victim 2 or any other victim is not necessary to understand why there was no cover up in the 2001 shower incident. Whether or not a crime was committed that night, the only thing that matters is whether people at PSU did the 'right' thing with information they had at the time. Based on the record to date I believe they did.

Much debate has occurred over the true identity of 'Victim 2' in the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Officially he has never been identified (p14 lines 7-9) by prosecutors in the case. Documentary filmmaker John Ziegler however has claimed to have identified a young man who he thinks is the mystery 'Victim 2'. A careful review of all of the evidence raises serious questions about that identity.

Most of the evidence to date revolving around 'Victim 2' is based in large part on a man coming forward to Jerry Sandusky's lawyer Joe Amendola. This man gave an interview to Curtis Everhart, and investigator for Mr. Amendola. The first point that supposedly confirms his identity as 'Victim 2' is that he heard the infamous 'locker door slam' that Mike McQueary (eventually) described. You can find that here:

First it was not public knowledge at that point in time, Nov ,9 2011, that the door sound was claimed by McQueary, in fact technically we did not even have confirmation McQueary was the graduate assistant. The first claim that McQueary makes to stopping the assault came in an email obtained by the Patriot News in which he only generally says he made sure it stopped but not how. His first direct public statement relating to the locker door did not come until McQueary testified at Schultz's and Curley's preliminary hearing (p17 Line 14) on Dec 16, 2011. Some will claim this lends credibility to the alleged Victim 2 statement, which might be the case except that Sandusky admits he met with this man in the fall leading up to his indictment. In fact we know they had a close relationship for years, thus making it possible at any point that Sandusky shared information with him.

You can also see several problems with the statement itself. First, McQuery claimed that he "slammed" the door shut in his testimony. However the victim says he heard a door "close". Either McQueary is embellishing what he did, or the victim is recalling a night other than the one McQueary is describing in his testimony. Second, the victim in this statement says that the sound of the locker closing was "a sound I have heard before". If this was a sound he heard before when showering with Sandusky, and he had showered frequently with Sandusky there, how do we know which night he was recalling 10 plus years later? Both Sandusky and the victim claim they never saw McQueary so why would a shower where you heard a noise you have heard before make it memorable? Combined with the fact that Sandusky had been in contact with him it adds no credible meaning to the claim that it was the same night.

A second point of contention with this victim's claim is of the date that the incident occurred. He states multiple times that it was March 1, 2002:

Why is this an issue? Mike McQuery also originally used the March 1, 2002 date in his claim as well and was wrong, but there is one key difference. Mike McQuery actually allowed room for doubt and said it may have actually been 2001.

The victim is clear several times in the interview that he is certain it was March 1, 2002 unlike McQueary who left us some doubt. What I believe is that Victim 2 is basing his statement in part on being shown the Grand Jury report of the Victim 2 incident during the interview, thus likely basing his certainty on the fact that the presentment states that as the date. He also claims this was the last night he ever showered with Sandusky at the PSU Complex. However what we now know is that the true date of the Victim 2 incident is February 9, 2001 which presents another problem with the alleged victim 2 statement. Speaking about his workouts and showering at PSU in general our victim states:

This victim says that he worked out with Sandusky at PSU until 2002, but says that the infamous shower incident was the last time he showered with Sandusky. This presents a problem for him since the true date of the shower incident was February 9, 2001 as demonstrated by the Schultz file and emails discovered since. We already know from the way the victim speaks that working out and showering at PSU was a regular occurrence. So two possibilities exist for this seeming contradiction. Either this man's memory is not as good as he thinks (likely) and 2001 was the true end of his showering there, or he is claiming that he worked out at PSU with Sandusky for more than a year without showering. Either could be correct. However since we know from the record that Sandusky was instructed not to bring children to the facilities, even if he did keep working out but not showering, Sandusky for the second time violated a warning about his activities with Second Mile kids, which further demonstrates possible intent.

Furthermore there are clear issues with the timing of this man's claim to be Victim 2. Notice that the man claims "that same week" he spoke to Jerry and was told to expect a phone call from PSU.

This does not fit at all with his claim surrounding the episode. This man claims the episode occurred March 1, 2002, but for the sake of this lets assume he just has the year incorrect. From the email evidence we now know that Tim Curley spoke to Sandusky sometime after February 26, 2001. It would fit then that this man was told he would be contacted sometime around March 1 and some have posited the contact from Jerry as confusing his memory in regard to "that week". The problem with that is the man claims in his statement that he very clearly remembers the night itself due to the door noise. If he very clearly remembers the night then it is a stretch to say that he got the relative time frame so wrong. The call/talk with Sandusky would have come approximately 3-4 weeks after the night in question.

Finally I come to the biggest problem with the statement given to Mr. Everhart by the victim. It is the contention in his interview that he quit The Second Mile program in the 6th grade.

Unfortunately apparently no one at The Second Mile got that memo because this same man gave a speech at a Second Mile event as a 9th grader in 2001. From the 2000 annual report (covering 8/31/2000 to 8/31/2001) of The Second Mile:

It would certainly be strange for an organization to use a self-proclaimed quitter of that organization to make a speech telling people how wonderful said organization is. The speech is also given in the present tense, thus implying that the speaker is still part of the program. "You lead us..", "You help us..", "you're there again.." all present tense. Sandusky himself also corroborates the man was indeed a Second Mile kid when the incident occurred in his prison interview:

What does all of this mean? I want to reiterate I am not disputing this man's claim that he is a victim of Jerry Sandusky and I do not think he is lying about being abused. He has received a settlement from PSU to that effect. He is a child sexual abuse victim, period. It does show that his belief that he is the victim known as 'Victim 2' in the presentment is suspect, in fact in totality the claims don't add up. He may very well believe that he is Victim 2, and he may well be, but it is far from certain based on the information we have to date. He may just have the same problems with memory that all people have. The record shows that multiple victims claim abuse during the time period of the 2001 shower incident and this man is one of them. We know Sandusky did not initially recall to Tim Curley which child he had at the showers that evening. It is quite possible that Sandusky considered his multiple victims and chose one he knew he had not crossed a line with that night and then suggested to that child that he was the person known as 'Victim 2'. It's also possible that this is the child in the shower that night and nothing overtly criminal happened. There are a range of possible explanations. Sandusky manipulated his victims like all preferential sex offenders and that manipulation did not stop necessarily when the actual abuse stopped.This man is still being groomed today by Sandusky (Sandusky left him voice mails in the fall of 2011 as well) just like most of the PSU community was groomed, just like Dottie was groomed.

Jim Clemente told us that Sandusky was in the top one percent of effective "groomers" and there is no reason to think Sandusky lost his charm and skills since being indicated for abuse in 2009. This man may truly believe in his heart that he was the boy McQueary observed in the shower with Sandusky that night and that he was not sexually victimized by Sandusky that night.  However, even if he was that boy, he clearly did not know, at the time or at the time when he was interviewed in 2011, the elements of the crimes of corruption of minors, unlawful contact with a minor, or endangering the welfare of a minor.  Therefore his assessment that no sexual crimes were committed that night by Sandusky is not relevant.  The "game playing" that he describes could certainly contain body contact between a naked Sandusky and this naked boy.  Such contact with the intent of sexual arousal on the part of Sandusky could violate the above referenced statutes with or without the knowledge of the victim. The fact that this man eventually disclosed sexual victimization by Sandusky indicates that like Sandusky's other known victims, this victim was skillfully groomed into sexual activity by a man who clearly had sexual intent throughout the grooming and sexual victimization process.

It is also important to note that Sandusky's attorney Amendola is on the record stating that he has doubts about this man's claim and was not able to verify it. 

Lastly the identity of the victim and even reality of the crimes that may or may not have occurred that February evening in 2001 are not material to any of Penn State's potential culpability in this case. Sandusky could have committed no crime that night and Penn State could still be guilty of not reporting by failing to follow the proper procedures for a valid suspected claim. Conversely Sandusky could have been raping the child that night and Penn State could still have done the right thing by following the proper procedures for a suspected claim even if that did not lead to Sandusky's arrest. Who was the victim of the claim is entirely immaterial to the process. Additionally it is unlikely we will ever know the true identity of Victim 2 with certainty because of the nature of the situation as it now stands.

No Vindication for Corbett et. Al. - PA politics and Keystone Corruption strike again

Ahead of the release of PA Attorney Kathleen Kane's review of the Sandusky investigation by H. Geoffery Moulton the various spin machines were out in force. PennLive and it's staff trotted out "anonymous" sources, likely from the Corbett camp who received the report for review, who stated it was "a complete vindication" of the Governor. In fact these sources went on to make the following statements.

Now that we have the full report from Mr. Moulton, let's take a deeper look at what evidence really is included. I would venture to state that it is far from vindication, and while it does not include any direct evidence that the Governor was playing politics, it contains enough to make some educated guesses. 

Many people have wondered why Sandusky was not immediately, or relatively quickly arrested. As we have seen in other instances in the Sandusky case, some very lucky breaks seemed to go Sandusky's way very early in the investigation. The first interview of Sandusky was conducted by CYS case worker Jessica Dershem and CYS solicitor Michael Angelelli with no law enforcement official present. Since the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) refused to cooperate with Mr. Moulton it is still unclear if this was deliberate or accidental. We only have Commissioner Noonan's word in his reply, the same man who famously blamed Joe Paterno for his moral failure in the indictment press conference in November 2011. 

In the interview of Sandusky there were already red flags that possible abuse was taking place as he admitted to some suspicious behavior that could be that of grooming (p.38 Moulton) such as "I can't honestly answer if my hands were below his pants". Shortly after the interview Dershem and Angelelli met with Gerald Rosamilia and "indicated" Sandusky for abuse. Just after this was Sandusky's next "lucky" break. When presented with a report on Sandusky Clinton County DA Michael Salisbury decided to send the case to Centre County DA Michael Madeira supposedly because most of the alleged conduct occurred in Centre County. That meant that Sandusky would get to defend himself against these allegations on his "home turf" where he had lots of people who would be protecting various interests around The Second Mile and Penn State. The county where Sandusky had already seemed to get quite lucky in avoiding charges in 1998. Not only did the case get bumped to his home county, but in another twist of lucky fate, Madeira was married to a sibling of one Sandusky's adopted children, meaning the case got handed directly to the OAG and Tom Corbett per state conflict of interest policies. 

One central argument to this complex case has been that a grand jury was needed to investigate a complicated case of child sexual assault (CSA).  It is important to note that Frank Fina claims this was his decision ultimately.On it's face there is absolutely nothing wrong with that determination since a grand jury has certain powers that provide an advantage. Two key powers are the ability to compel testimony and the ability to operate in secret. However it appears in this case that the grand jury advantages were rarely used in the early years of the case. Unlike what is required in a CSA case under statute the OAG did not create a multidisciplinary team to pursue the charges in the Sandusky case. What they did immediately was add a local State College agent to the case, Agent Sassano. Was this a move by the OAG to plant a local with knowledge to help, or hinder the investigation, or was it merely a factor of the lack of resource due to unwillingness to unearth Sandusky evidence and/or other investigations like Bonusgate? No one knows. 

Another early event that should have led to an obvious place, The Second Mile, but didn't was the corroborating information on grooming behaviors given to  Trooper Cavanaugh by F.P. and F.A.. Both boys confirmed that they met Sandusky through his charity and both boys described similar grooming actions as Fisher, though neither alleged actual sexual abuse. At this point it would seem fairly evident that Sandusky was using his charity for selection of possible victims. Along with the two boys, other odd behavior was testified to at the Grand Jury by CMHS wrestling coach Miller and Assistant Principal Turchetta. This testimony included the fact that Sandusky was "controlling", "clingy", and "needy" with his Second Mile children at CMHS. 

Despite this corroborating evidence that seemed to connect Sandusky's behavior to the children at his charity no subpoenas were served to TSM, nor any employees, nor for any TSM records. In fact in September of 2009 Sassano actually suggested four possible steps. Obtain a search warrant for Sandusky's home, contact the Philadelphia Eagles about tickets Sandusky may have obtained for Fisher, access Sandusky's employment records at PSU, and subpoena Centre County CYS for similar complaints about Sandusky. No mention of the one place that ties Sandusky to all of the strange and/or criminal behaviors, The Second Mile. Only two of the suggestions ever occurred and it was not until almost 18 months and 2 years later that they occurred. As of the end of 2009 there had been 5 Grand Jury sessions regarding Sandusky and despite ample reason to connect the possible crimes to his charity, not one action had been taken in that regards. This is despite the statement to the Grand Jury by Eshbach that "– my bosses want us to pursue every angle. They have said, you know, go where the evidence leads". 

Conspicuously the next action taken in 2010 was a subpoena to Penn State for Sandusky's employment records. Despite at least three independent children connecting possible grooming/abuse to Sandusky's charity, Eschbach explained the PSU subpoena this way:

"The reason for the issuance of the subpoena to Penn State is because we have some suspicion that the university may have become aware of Sandusky’s inappropriate behavior towards the many young boys he was in contact with while he was employed at the university, through his creation and participation in the Second Mile Program. Sandusky was routinely surrounded by young men, although we have been unable to develop any victims other than the one minor victim who has testified before the Grand Jury. However, it is worthy of note that  Sandusky left Penn State as the defensive coordinator of the very successful, Division One-A Penn State Nittany Lion Football team at a relatively young age and rather abruptly. Although [it] is obvious that he was not going to be Joe Paterno’s successor at any time in [the] near future at the time of his retirement, it was at the time odd that he retired so abruptly. We therefore are seeking any records which might indicate that his reason for leaving the university’s employ was other than by his own choice. I recognize that it is possible that the records might be sanitized concerning this but believe after consulting with the investigators and many of you, that is a lead we must pursue."

Apparently a vague suspicion, based on no hard evidence, about the circumstances of Sandusky's retirement was more than enough cause to subpoena PSU records, but actual testimony from people connected to TSM was not. This defies all logic to a lay person.

At the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010 there were three other developments that warrant mention. The first is that being 2010, an election year for the PA governor's office, all eyes were on Tom Corbett who was running for Governor. The second was that Eshbach began working on a draft presentment to give to the Grand Jury for possible approval. The third item was that due to his increasing responsibility in the Bonusgate trial of Mike Veon, which no doubt was a key optic for Corbett in his election campaign, Fina temporarily asked off the case. In his place Glenn Parno, the chief deputy of the Environmental  Crimes section of the Criminal Law Division, temporarily assumed Fina's duties for the Sandusky case. Yes, you read that correctly, and environmental crime agent took over duty for a child sex abuse case. That tells you all you need to know about how seriously Corbett and Fina took this investigation in reality. 

These developments meant that by the time she finished the draft presentment, Eshbach submitted it to Parno rather than Fina. Eshbach, according to her own statements, was under no illusion that the case against Sandusky would be easy, but felt this was one way to open up new leads. She believed Fisher, had corroboration of odd behavior by Sandusky from others, and hoped that filing the charges would encourage other victims to come forward knowing they were no longer alone. This is confirmed by none other than expert Ken Lanning in his manual on Child Molestors: 

Because of the volume of crime, limited resources, and lack of knowledge about the nature of the crime, many law-enforcement agencies are unable or unwilling to continue an investigation to find more than a couple of victims. If that is the case they must try to identify as many victims as possible. Other victims are sometimes identified through publicity about the case. 

On March 15th the draft presentment had been edited with the help of Parno and forwarded to Sheetz for review. Eshbach told the Grand Jury that she hoped to have it approved and in front of them very soon. Little did she know, this case was not important enough to Corbett or Fina and she would get the run around for quite some time. In April she was told that Fina was "holding this to talk to you". Sometime in late April or early May Fina reviewed the draft for the first time. Despite claiming he felt the the case was too weak, he suggested changes in the draft. If he felt the case was weak why would he ask for changes to a presentment that Eshbach wanted to present immediately? 

In June Eshbach continued to inquire about the presentment approval. She was at one point told by Sheetz that "Bill Ryan was to give it to Tom (Corbett). I will check." Bill Ryan was of course the infamous man who changed the retention policy of the OAG so as to effectively attempt to remove the email communications about this case after the fact. In July Eshbach once again inquired via email about the presentment and once again an email indicates that Tom Corbett would be spoken to. Nothing happened. Yet again in August Eshbach brought up the issue and this time Fina himself replied "We are still working on the case, looking for better corroboration of our single victim. We need to do everything possible to find other victims." Yet still no question of looking to TSM. Sometime after the July email, likely in August, Corbett held a meeting with Sheetz, Ryan, and Fina in which they decided not to charge the case as is at the time. What I find interesting is that the meeting apparently involved no one with an opposing point of view. All three people Corbett spoke to had expressed doubt about the case, and Eshbach was not included. Is it any wonder the outcome was no presentment? Was that the plan all along?

What is interesting here is that the spring and summer when Eshbach was ignored is primary season, and August is the beginning of the general campaign after people return from summer vacations. Almost no action occurred on the case in these times. 

Soon after this, in September 2010, a public announcement was made that Sandusky would retire from Second Mile. The only reason given was the usual, "spend more time with family" type stuff. Sometime in the fall we find yet another suspicious event occur. Fisher reports that he was approached at school by a man who asked about his identity and his involvement with The Second Mile. 

In late October Aaron Fisher's mother reports to Trooper Rossman that some internet forums contain information about Sandusky being a child molestor, which according to Moulton's report were apparently triggered (doubtful, more later) by his retirement notice. After follow up it was determined none of the posters had first hand knowledge to further the investigation. 

What happened next is touted as the "big break" in the case. On November 2nd, Attorney General Corbett won the PA Gubenatorial election. Then on November 3rd, Eshbach sent an email to Fina stating her concern about Fisher's well being and the fact that on election night a Centre Daily Times reported knocked on the family's door asking questions about The Second Mile and Sandusky. As of yet the investigation had not been made public, so this meant there was a leak somewhere. That same day, November 3rd, brought the miracle break that would be the "watershed moment" in the investigation, the infamous "Concerned Citizen" email tip about Mike McQuery. 

That's quite the timing isn't it? The day after the election, and the day after a CDT reporter showed up at Fisher's house someone emails the State College DA with the break in the case. A case that would go on to destroy one of the largest and most respected universities in the country. Just...after....election....day. What is even further confounding about this miracle tip is several items. From regular users on the message board where this was discussed I have confirmed that the discussion of this topic regarding Sandusky's propensity for pre-teen/teen boys occurred as early as 2006. It is also well know that the tipster (now identified among many in the PSU football community but I will not use his name or handle here) had a well known penchant for disliking and/or wanting the ouster of Joe Paterno as head coach for several years. So ask yourself this, why did this citizen only become concerned in late 2010 and not in 2006 when this topic was discussed on the message boards?

In January 2011 several Penn State employees were called before the Grand Jury. Also in January the State College police provided an incident report about the 1998 incident, though Fina recalls having at least a partial copy earlier, perhaps in November or December (Moulton footnote 124). The questioning of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz at the GJ occurred and The Second Mile was finally issued a subpoena on January 28th, conveniently 10 days after Corbett was sworn in as Governor. However despite now having at least two victims, possibly 3 (second boy in shower incident in 1998) and independent confirmation of grooming behavior, all coming from boys at his charity no warrant was issued to search Sandusky's home or the Second Mile facilities for evidence. In fact in March 2011 Jack Raykovitz told the Patriot News that he was assured The Second Mile and it's programs was not a target of the investigation. Once again this defies logic. 

On March 31st Sarah Ganim of the Patriot News published the first article in which it was revealed that Sandusky was indeed the target of a grand jury investigation relating to child sexual abuse. Once this article was public one major reason for the use of the Grandy Jury, and the delay in arresting Sandusky, vanished. At this point it is hard to see why Sandusky was not charged and arrested. Instead a warrant was not issued to search his home for almost three months (executed on June 21 2011, two weeks after an email from Sassano to Feathers that detailed why Sandusky should be arrested "asap") despite the fact that the March 31 article generated two almost immediate leads in the infamous "janitor" incident (see www.notpsu.blogspot.com for detailed analysis of this hoax) and another victim known as B.S.H. Instead two weeks later Frank Fina asked for and recieved a gag order on all GJ witnesses, a highly unusual move. Also of note is that the evidence cited in the search warrant (Moulton Appendix O) was not substantially materially different than the evidence that investigators had since 2009 when the case initially started. 

After March the investigation picked up the pace significantly, with multiple other victims being discovered or coming forward over the next several months. Despite this there still had not been any Sandusky arrest. In fact as many know Sandusky was not arrested until November 2011, when someone "inadvertently" posted the indictment on the PA judicial system website.

So in summary this is how the basic timeline went down:

Late 2008 - Sandusky reported for alleged abuse of Fisher, cased pushed up to OAG, multiple confirmations of allegations by others at CMHS. Despite connections to TSM kids no warrants issued for Sandusky or TSM

Late 2008-Late 2009 - Limited resources appropriated to grand jury despite "significance" of case. Almost none of the advantages of a GJ investigation are used, despite that being the justification for it's choice in this case. 

Early 2010 - Penn State issued subpoena based on vague suspicion that Sandusky's retirement was odd.

Ealry 2010-August 2010 - Eshbach almost entirely ignored by superiors for 5-6 months, coinciding with Primary Season in PA Governors Election. A campaign in which the Governor received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from TSM and it's board members. 

August 2010 - Corbett denies presentment just prior to kickoff of fall election season

September 2010 - Sandusky retirement publicly reported

November 3, 2010 - The day after election "miracle" tip comes in that opens up new potential victims even though it was known on message boards for ~4 years. 

January 2011 - Days after Corbett is sworn in, several PSU employees finally testify and TSM is subpoenaed. 

March 2011 - First public report of investigation by Sara Ganim. Unleashes an eventual torrent of victims. 

June 2011 - Sandusky home finally searched. 

November 2011 - Sandusky finally arrested. 

So you decide. Is there an email or recorded phone conversation in which Tom Corbett states he is intentionally delaying the investigation? No. Does is smell awful rank? Like I said, you decide. 

UPDATE 23Jul2014: Research I did this morning in reference to another item has now provided evidence that the OAG is lying about learning of the Victim 2 incident being found through the email from "A Concerned Citizen". In the picture below you can see that Penn Live reporter David Jones states that he heard a graphic account of this incident in August of 2010. This is substantial evidence the OAG is lying, and that once again reporters at the Patriot News are covering for them. This picture is taken from the following website of a question and answer session Jones did after the Freeh report was released.