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.