The Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse trial opens today in Centre County Court. Reporter Sara Ganim gives a look at what to expect in the early portion of the trial.
An explanation as to why Sandusky was not prosecuted by former and now missing district attorney Ray Gricar in 1998.
Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, is likely to say that this charge should never have been brought since the allegation that Sandusky bear-hugged a naked boy during a shower in 1998 was investigated for several weeks and the case was closed. It goes to his defense that Sandusky was just goofing around with kids but nothing sexual happened.
The explanation from officials at the Keystone Central School District in Clinton County as to why Sandusky was given so much freedom to be alone with kids and take them from class.
At Sandusky’s request, students -- including Victim One -- were called out of class and allowed to meet privately with Sandusky. Sandusky was also caught one time after hours in a school wrestling room, lying with Victim One on a mat, face to face, the grand jury report says.
Whether Amendola can show that any of the accusers are still friends and communicate with one another.
One of the main defense theories is that several of the accusers, including Victims 3, 5, 6 and 7, knew one another and might have conspired to accuse Sandusky of molestation once they heard that Penn State was intertwined in the case. Amendola says they are all troubled kids who are seeking money from potential lawsuits. He sought phone records but admitted several weeks ago that he hadn’t found evidence of his theory.
Mike McQueary’s explanation as to why and how he did not remember the date of the alleged incident initially thought to have happened in 2002 but now said to have happened in 2001.
When the grand jury report was released, it said that the night before spring break in 2002, McQueary returned to the football locker room around 10 p.m. and saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy in the showers. Months later, prosecutors changed the date to Feb. 9, 2001. It’s likely to be an open door for Amendola to attack McQueary’s credibility.
Prosecutors’ explanation of what evidence convinced them that the date of Victim Two’s case was 2001, not 2002.
When prosecutors changed the date, they said it was because they had found additional evidence but did not elaborate. If there are emails or other correspondence talking about the incident, they could shed light on who knew what and when.
Whether the man who Sandusky claims is Victim Two -- even though prosecutors have not identified him that way -- will take the stand and defend Sandusky, saying he was never molested in the shower.
Days after Sandusky was charged, Amendola says a man came to his office claiming he was the man known as Victim Two in the presentment. At the time, Amendola said the man told him that he remembered showering with Sandusky but that nothing sexual ever happened. He remembered the incident only because Sandusky called him a few days later, explained that someone felt uncomfortable about the shower, and that the university athletic director might call to talk to him. Until now, prosecutors say they still have not identified Victim Two and are relying on eyewitnesses to make that case.
Dr. Jonathan Dranov’s testimony about what McQueary told him the night he says he witnessed Sandusky in the shower.
Dranov’s testimony could be interesting for two reasons: Dranov’s grand jury testimony was that McQueary told Dranov he didn’t see anything, just heard sexual noises. Dranov also testified that he was present weeks later with McQueary’s father when he asked Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz what ever came of the allegation. Schultz replied that fired President Graham Spanier had met with Sandusky, according to Dranov.
Victim 9’s explanation of his relationship with Dottie Sandusky.
In his grand jury testimony, Victim 9 accused Sandusky of sexually abusing him during sessions alone in Sandusky’s basement. He said one time he called out for help, knowing that Dottie Sandusky was upstairs, but no help came.
How much interaction The Second Mile officials or board members might have had with the accusers.
Prosecutors say Sandusky used his charity to prey on boys, going so far as to call it a “victim factory.” The former and current CEOs of the charity are on a potential defense witness list. But it will be interesting to hear how much contact the accusers say they had with people within the organization and how much of the alleged abuse happened during Second Mile events.
How investigators explain the 18-month delay in the investigation after Victim One came forward.
Victim One first made allegations against Sandusky in late 2008, and by spring 2009, a grand jury was hearing evidence on the case. We know of several people who testified in the summer of that year. However, one investigator was working the case for more than a year, and it wasn’t until Gov. Tom Corbett left the attorney general’s office because he was elected governor that seven more investigators were put on the case. Around that time, police found seven more alleged victims -- including two cases that previously had been reported in some way.
Supporting evidence of abuse, such as letters, emails, child pornography, photographs, voice recordings.
Last summer, police executed searches of Sandusky’s home, and among the things taken were hard drives and computers. Two of the alleged victims -- Victim Four and Victim One -- received letters or notes or birthday cards from Sandusky, sources say. The contents have yet to be revealed, although someone close to Victim One said the notes were not sexual but did contain the phrase, “I love you.” His attorney has said Sandusky often wrote notes of encouragement to young boys in The Second Mile, and there was nothing sexual about them.
