Jerry Sandusky

Testimony at ex-coach’s trial shows missed chances

BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) — The eyewitness testimony that confronted jurors in Jerry Sandusky’s child-molestation trial this week was disturbing not only for its graphic descriptions of sex with boys, but for what it said about the people who surrounded and maybe even protected the once-revered Penn State assistant football coach.

Eight accusers took the witness stand and described how Sandusky molested them in campus showers, hotel bathrooms, a basement bedroom, a sauna used by the football team – right under the noses of his friends, colleagues, family members and acquaintances.

Sandusky was charged in November and December with more than 50 counts of abuse. The scandal brought disgrace to Penn State and led to the ouster of Joe Paterno, the Hall of Fame coach who died in January at age 85.

The Sandusky story, the way authorities have framed it, is one littered with missed chances to stop a rapist who preyed on children for years.

Prosecutors have hinted that top university officials knew far more about Sandusky’s alleged proclivities than they have let on, submitting a document Monday that says Penn State’s former vice president – himself facing charges related to the scandal – maintained a file on Sandusky a decade ago. A Penn State trustee told The Associated Press he now suspects a cover-up.

Yet evidence and testimony from the trial also show there were plenty of people, not just those at the highest levels of the university, who had ample opportunity to stop a man accused of violating 10 boys over 15 years:

– A janitor failed to tell authorities he allegedly caught Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy in a campus shower a dozen years ago.

– A district attorney with a reputation for prosecuting cases involving children and sexual abuse victims declined to charge Sandusky over a 1998 molestation allegation even though the detective who investigated thought it was a solid case. The DA, Ray Gricar, disappeared in 2005 and was declared legally dead last year.

– School district officials were skeptical of abuse claims brought by the young man known in court papers as Victim 1 because, the accuser testified, Sandusky was considered to have a “heart of gold.” Victim 1’s allegations eventually triggered the state investigation that produced charges.

– One accuser testified he screamed out for help at least once when Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, was in the house. He doesn’t know whether she heard his cries.

– And, famously, coaching assistant Mike McQueary saw Sandusky having what he believed to be anal sex with a young boy in 2001. But his report to Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz went nowhere. McQueary’s dad testified that during a conversation, Schultz said he was suspicious of Sandusky, and NBC reported this week that emails between former university President Graham Spanier and Schultz aiming to keep McQueary’s allegation from going further were turned over to the attorney general.

-Others also saw Sandusky engaging in behavior that was at least odd, if not criminal. Longtime assistant coach Tom Bradley walked into the shower when one boy was with Sandusky, the accuser testified, and a wrestling coach told jurors he saw Sandusky and a child rolling on the floor.

– Several accusers said their parents or caregivers failed to grasp what was happening to them. Victim 4 testified that one weekend he did not want to go with Sandusky and told his mother, “I’m pretty sure he’s gay,” but she dismissed the idea. “She said, oh, whatever, this is just one of your lies,” he told jurors. He also said at one point he told his grandmother to tell Sandusky he wasn’t home when he called.

Victim 1 testified that when he asked his mother about “a website for people who do things to children,” and she asked why, he said it was “to see if Jerry was on there.” He said he didn’t think she totally understood. And Victim 9 told jurors he described Sandusky to his mother as “a touchy-feely type of a person,” but she pressured him to spend time with the former coach.

Keith Masser, a Penn State trustee, said in an interview that he initially thought the scandal was about a failure of administrative oversight of the football program. Now he suspects it goes deeper.

When the board of trustees ousted Spanier on Nov. 9, four days after Sandusky’s arrest, it was “because we didn’t have confidence in his ability to lead us through this crisis,” Masser said. “We had no idea (at the time) he would be involved in a cover-up.”

Masser stressed he was speaking for himself and not the board at large, and said he wants to be careful not to draw premature conclusions. But he said it now appears like “top administration officials and top athletic officials were involved in making the decision to not inform the proper authorities.”

With prosecutors focused on the sex-abuse allegations against Sandusky, the trial isn’t intended to yield evidence of a possible cover-up. That’s the job of Louis Freeh, the former FBI director hired by the board of trustees to investigate the scandal. His report could be released in late summer.

Spanier, who has not been charged with any crime, did not respond to email and phone messages. His attorney did not return a phone call.

The law firm defending Curley and Schultz against charges they lied in their grand jury testimony and failed to report suspect abuse said in a statement this week they “conscientiously considered” McQueary’s account and “deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct and handle the situation properly.” They did not respond to follow-up questions posed by the AP.

The testimony of eight of the 10 alleged victims named in a grand jury report prompted disgust and revulsion from Penn State alumni and others who took to Twitter last week to express their dismay – and to call for the heads of anyone involved in concealing abuse. “Anyone who knew and didn’t report should burn!” tweeted one.

Ann Tenbrunsel, a professor of business ethics at the University of Notre Dame, attributes the failure to stop Sandusky to a phenomenon she calls “motivated blindness,” a tendency, whether subconscious or deliberate or sometimes both, to ignore unethical or even criminal behavior by others when you perceive it to be in your best interest to do so. Motivated blindness “means I don’t probe, I don’t ask, I don’t believe,” Tenbrunsel said. “I have evidence in front of me but choose to disregard facts.”

The trial is scheduled to enter its fifth day Monday as prosecutors near the end of their case. Sandusky denies all the charges, saying that while he showered with boys, he never touched them sexually. His attorney has suggested the accusers are twisting the truth because they intend to sue.


Associated Press writers Mark Scolforo and Genaro C. Armas in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report.

Source: AP

Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Share this post!
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Pinterest



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *