• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/views.module on line 1118.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_field::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_field.inc on line 1148.
  • strict warning: Declaration of content_handler_field::element_type() should be compatible with views_handler_field::element_type($none_supported = false, $default_empty = false, $inline = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/cck/includes/views/handlers/content_handler_field.inc on line 229.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 599.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 599.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_area::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_area.inc on line 81.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_area_text::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/handlers/views_handler_area_text.inc on line 121.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_query::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/plugins/views_plugin_query.inc on line 181.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/plugins/views_plugin_style_default.inc on line 24.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/jzadmin/domains/framingpaterno.com/public_html/sites/all/modules/contributed/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 136.

Exclusive Evidence: The Real Story of "The Ten Year Old Boy" in the Shower

Editor's Note: The name of "Victim 2" is NOT revealed here even though, as documented in this article, he made himself a public figure for the purposes of the Sandusky story. He did this when he proactively wrote multiple published letters to the editor in local papers supporting Sandusky and criticizing his accusers.

There has been an absurd amount of misinformation about how and why I have come to the decision to reveal this evidence in this manner. My plan was to do this (with his name) late Monday night after my CNN appearance, but then the "Paterno Report" sex crimes expert Jim Clemente (with whom I have been consulting throughout this entire process), who had been supportive of the decision to reveal Victim 2's identity, called me to tell me that he wanted me to reconsider because he was getting word that this person was upset about this prospect. Jim put me in touch with someone who he wrongly thought had a line of communication with Victim 2 and I told them that I would be happy to hold off on doing this if he spoke to me off the record and he explained to me why he deserved special consideration.

Reports that I "threatened" to "out" this victim unless he participated in a proposed documentary are totally absurd and borderline defamatory.

As it turned out, there was no line of communication to this person and I have no idea whether he ever knew that I was willing to do this. His cell phone, which I have called several times over the past few weeks, has now been disconnected.

I wish to make clear that I currently believe him to be a good and honest person who got caught up in a horrible situation not of his own making. I sincerely do not want to cause him any difficulty, but I am convinced that the full truth of this story will never be known unless his tale is told and there is no way to do that without divulging at least the details of his participation in this story.  I have decided to go to great lengths to keep his name out of it.

I realize that by doing the story this way (without his name) that it will not receive nearly the attention that it otherwise would and that I will be accused of not having proven my case. This will not be the first time that I will not be given any credit for having taken the high road in this story. 

It is also important to point out that the New York Times effectively "outed" Victim 1 in this case as Aaron Fisher, without actually using his name. They received zero blow back for this action, even though Fisher had not ever gone public with his own name with a published article on this case. I am quite sure that I will not receive nearly the same reaction.

For the past year and a half, I have been investigating the Jerry Sandusky scandal for a documentary film on the media coverage of Joe Paterno and Penn State. I thought I had a pretty good handle on the details of this incredibly complicated saga, but then I recently spent three and a half hours doing the first (and probably last of its kind) interview with Sandusky himself since his conviction and I realized that there is much still to be learned and understood about what really happened in what the media has routinely called “the biggest scandal in college sports history.” 

One of the great mysteries of this case has always been the identity of the “ten year old boy” in the shower, who the prosecution claimed in its indictment of Sandusky was “raped” in an act witnessed by Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary. From the perspective of Joe Paterno and Penn State, this allegation was the basis for nearly the entire case against them for being culpable for Sandusky's crimes because this is the only episode about which we are sure they knew anything substantive.

It is the instant narrative created by this single episode which the media used to bring down the legacy of Paterno and his formally esteemed football program (Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett even admitted invoking the “ten year old child” when he urged the Penn State board of trustees to fire Paterno, before later, tellingly, claiming he never mentioned the boy). After all, if such a thing really happened, was reported accurately by McQueary, and “nothing” was done to investigate it, or it was actually “covered up,” then Paterno and others were almost as guilty as Sandusky.

At the time of Sandusky’s arrest and Paterno’s firing, the victim in this episode known only as “#2” was thought to be “unidentified,” meaning that, at least according to the media, he had never come forward to tell his story. Then, suddenly right after Sandusky was convicted, a law firm saying they represent “Victim 2” went public with voicemails from Sandusky to the boy (presumably now a young adult) which they said proved that he was the kid at the center of the 2001 event which ten years later would set off an earthquake in State College. They released a statement announcing a lawsuit against Penn State (seemingly carefully parsed by the spirit of Bill Clinton) which stated that their client had been abused by Sandusky “before and after” (not during?) the incident witnessed by McQueary.

My suspicions about the real story of “Victim 2” have been at the heart of why I have devoted so much time, effort and resources to the cause of finding out what actually happened here. The media’s preferred narrative just never made any sense to me and when I started to learn more about the details of the “McQueary incident” my gut immediately told me that something wasn’t right.

For one thing, it turned out that McQueary and the prosecution got the date, month and year of the event flat wrong (they claimed it was March 2002 in the presentment when, as Sandusky himself always maintained, it happened in 2001), which seemed very odd considering what he now says happened was supposedly so dramatic and, presumably, memorable.

We also later learned that “Victim 2” had actually come forward on two different occasions to separate elements of the defense team after Sandusky’s arrest and declared on the record that he was not abused by him that night in the shower or ever, but then he seemed to instantly disappear into the legal ether as if he never existed. The reality was apparently very different.

The above link, released exclusively here, is to a never before publicly seen report of an interview which the self proclaimed "Victim 2" gave to an FBI-trained investigator and former police officer. It was conducted the day after this person had walked, unannounced and with his mother, into the office of Sandusky's lawyer Joe Amendola and said that he was "the boy in the shower" being referred to in the grand jury presentment and that Sandusky had never molested him.

Ironically (though, I believe not totally coincidentally), the date was November 9th, 2011. The interview was conducted just hours before Joe Paterno would be fired for allegedly not doing enough to protect the very young adult who was giving remarkably strong testimony which completely exonerates Sandusky on this particular episode and even calls Mike McQueary a liar, all just miles from where Paterno's 61-year career would come to a crushing end later that evening.

The report is amazing on many levels and even includes a damning indictment of the police investigators who tried hard (but failed) to get "Victim 2" to say something accusatory about his relationship with Sandusky when they interviewed him about two months before Sandusky's arrest. He doesn't just deny being abused by Sandusky, he is extremely outraged by what he describes as McQueary's lies and proactive in his condemnation of those who try to claim that Sandusky had abused him that night. He also backs up Sandusky's assertion (made for the first time in my interview with him) that neither of them even saw McQueary that night in the Penn State locker room.

If he hadn't gotten get the date very wrong (it is extremely important to point out that he was using the highly publicized incorrect date which the prosecution and McQueary came up with for the presentment), this evidence alone would virtually prove that nothing overtly sexual happened in the shower that night and that the entire "Penn State Scandal" media narrative is based in an event that didn't happen.

However, that night Paterno was fired and Graham Spanier was forced to resign as Penn State's president. It was then clear to the entire world that Jerry Sandusky was going to prison. At that point, perhaps the weight of the public outcry convinced "Victim 2" to revisit his many experiences with Sandusky and allowed him to come to a new conclusion Jerry's intent without actually changing his version of what actually did and did not transpire between them.

When "Victim 2" reemerged via his lawyers (conveniently after the trial and any corresponding heavy scrutiny of his story) releasing those voicemail messages left by Sandusky, it seemed to me that perhaps the most important exculpatory piece of evidence in the case for Joe Paterno and the Penn State administrators now under indictment was being completely misunderstood or just simply ignored.

In those voicemails from September 2011 Sandusky is clearly calling “Victim 2” back after the young adult had told him that he had been asked to come forward and tell his story. Sandusky urges him to go ahead because there is “nothing really to hide.”

This was a “bombshell” to me because the only way to interpret it (given the date being months before Sandusky was indicted and the story hit wide public consciousness) was that it had to be the authorities who were asking “Victim 2” to come forward, and since he had never been asked to testify at the grand jury or the trial itself, it was obvious that he was saying that Sandusky never abused him. (Currently, the prosecution’s official, very low key, face-saving position is that the “real” “Victim 2” is still “unidentified,” which would have to mean that Sandusky, with the help of numerous people, including lawyers who are suing him, is telling a remarkably intricate lie that actually works against his own interest, and that somewhere there is a man who has not only decided to stay completely silent despite being involved in the most famous act of child molestation in history, but who is also allowing someone else to come forward and falsely claim to be him, apparently for money.)

Sure enough, when I recently interviewed Sandusky face to face in the State Correctional Institution in Waynesburg, PA, it turned out that my rather simple analysis of the voicemails was dead on.

Sandusky emphatically, unprompted, and in great detail recounted how “Victim 2” had indeed done a police interview (which is seamlessly backed up by the report linked to previously where "the boy in the shower" strongly condemns the investigators for their tactics). He was even quoted as having told the police in his final words to them, "I will never have anything bad to say about Jerry." (to be fair, it appears as if the police were not specifically questioning him about the “McQueary incident” at that time but rather about whether he was abused by Sandusky in general, and because, like Sandusky told me, he didn't see McQueary that night and the presentment referring to a "Victim 2" wasn't out yet, it is perfectly rational that, like two ships passing in the night, neither side of this conversation would have figured out the full magnitude of it at that time).

But that was hardly all that I learned about this person in my interview with Sandusky.

It turns out that, thanks partly to Sandusky inadvertently providing me with numerous clues, I have finally been able to discern on my own the actual name of “Victim 2” (which I then confirmed with both Jerry and Dottie Sandusky and one of his attorneys) as well as some remarkable new elements to his story.

So, unless he is part of a hoax so elaborate that it would put Manti Te'o's dead girlfriend to shame (in which case Penn State is currently the target of at least one highly fraudulent lawsuit by a prestigious law firm which is representing several of the primary Sandusky victims),  the media’s version of his story is both remarkably inaccurate and incomplete. (It should be noted that because, as I will disclose momentarily, he has actually already gone very public with his real name in connection to this story, he has no ethical claim to anonymity here, but we are going above and beyond the call of duty to protect him here.)

First, he was not ten years old at the time of the incident, but rather almost 14 (which is one of many significant details which McQueary’s nearly decade old recollection got wrong). In fact, he was only about two and a half years away from earning a varsity letter on his high school football team.

Second, incredibly, the summer before the arrests he played golf with Sandusky at Toftrees Golf Resort in State College along with a longtime board member of the Second Mile charity (with whom I have confirmed this event took place) as well as a future member of the Penn State Board of Trustees.

Thirdly, and perhaps most shockingly, that spring he had written a very public letter to the editor which was published in multiple local papers (I have the versions which were published, but in order to protect his name I am using only the original copies which I have redacted) in which he strongly praises Sandusky. He also gives key details about himself, including the high school football connection (I have a roster from his team confirming his participation), which further confirm him as “Victim 2," and urges people to be very skeptical of the accusers. He also sent a copy of the same letter to Pennsylvania’s Attorney General  (again, redacted) who was overseeing the ongoing grand jury investigation at the time.

This means that the victim supposedly at the center of the biggest scandal in the history of college sports, unambiguously, proactively, and voluntarily, at the age of 24 and as a married Sergeant in the Marine Corps, went on the record on at least five occasions (letters to the editor, letter to the AG, interview with the state police, interview with Joe Amendola, and an interview with Amendola's investigator) just before and after Sandusky’s arrest in order to vigorously defend him against allegations of sexual abuse and even overtly questioned the credibility of the accusers and Mike McQueary himself.

Why did the man then "flip" and say through lawyers that he was indeed abused by Sandusky? Jerry himself is at a loss to fully explain it and is clearly devastated by what he sees as deep a betrayal as any he has experienced in this entire nightmare.

Sandusky notes that the man’s mother just happened to previously work for the attorney who “found” him while he was also, just coincidentally, actively advertising for “Penn State victims” (this attorney, Andrew Shubin, who is named in the Ross/Feller/Casey press release as representing “Victim 2” is also listed as the attorney for this person in a pending DUI case, which is one of several auto-related legal issues he has had in recent years and which we are not posting so as to protect his name). Sandusky theorizes Victim 2's sudden and dramatic “flip” could have been for the easy money that Penn State appears ready to hand out to anyone claiming to have been abused in any way by Sandusky.

However, Jim Clemente, a retired FBI sex crimes expert who wrote a extensive report commissioned by the Paterno family has convinced me after hours of detailed conversation that it is also possible that Victim 2 didn’t even realize that Sandusky was indeed abusing him all of those years ago because he was being “groomed” by Sandusky into compliant victimization without there necessarily being blatant sex acts involved.

A close reading of his statement to Amendola's investigator is actually very consistent with that theory because technically he doesn't even have to contradict his testimony in order to be able to claim, in retrospect, some level of "abuse." (I have learned that one of the many problems with understanding this incredibly complex case is that sexual "abuse" does not necessarily have to include what most people would think of as "sex" and, in fact, the majority of the accusations made against Sandusky have not involved unambiguous "sex acts.")

According to Clemente, "Compliant Victims" typically feel a great deal of love and respect for the offenders who victimize them because those same offenders are providing them with attention, affection, access, and assets that the victims need and appreciate. Therefore, those victims will typically defend their offenders and deny that any victimization took place in order to keep the good things coming, to avoid hurting the offender, and to keep themselves from suffering from the stigma of being a victim. This is especially true when a male adult sexually offends against male adolescent children. Under this scenario, it was only after learning the full magnitude of the evidence against Sandusky that Victim 2 suddenly saw his close interaction with his “friend” Jerry in a far more sinister light.

Regardless of which exact interpretation is correct, the bottom line is still the same: based on the current evidence, it is absolutely impossible to conclude that Jerry Sandusky “raped” Victim 2 that infamous night in the Penn State shower. In fact, no one (not even McQueary) other than whoever wrote the grand jury presentment, and the news media which blindly reported it as fact, has ever actually even alleged that. And more importantly, that is not what even McQueary testified to in Sandusky's trial, resulting, ironically, in Sandusky being acquitted on that charge despite the obvious reality that the jury was understandably extremely eager to convict him on any charge that they possibly could.

Personally, for many reasons, I don’t think any sort of explicit sex act occurred that night. And logically, if nothing like that happened, Mike McQueary could not have seen such a thing (the evidence is quickly mounting that he didn't see much of anything at all). Therefore it seems highly unlikely he would have told anyone at Penn State that he saw such a specific act (what he said ten years later to investigators desperate for a witness is another story for another time). Consequently, it is not sensible to blame Paterno or others for not doing more than they did (which was actually more than most people realize) to curtail the acts of someone who everyone in the community thought for sure was a goofy, kid-loving, Saint with boundary issues.

For those who claim that it is irrelevant what actually happened in the shower because it is only what Mike McQueary told Penn State he thought he saw (I wish to make clear that McQueary obviously thought he saw something which he believed to be inappropriate), I would suggest you consider how differently Sandusky would have come across to Tim Curley, and later to Jack Raykovitz of the Second Mile charity, if he knew he hadn't done anything sexual and knew the boy would back him up on that, as opposed to how he might have seemed to them if he thought he was caught dead to rights. Wouldn't Sandusky's "innocence" in this one episode have a direct impact on why Curley clearly came to the conclusion that nothing overtly criminal or sinister had taken place that night?

It seems to me that the key conversations in all of this may have been Sandusky with Curley/Raykovitz and not, as the media has always believed, McQueary with Paterno/Curley/Schultz. After all, Sandusky obviously had far more information about what happened that night than McQueary did and most importantly, he knew (whether out of true innocence of compliant victimization) that Victim 2 was going to back him up.

This leads me to another important element of this new interpretation of the facts. Paterno and Penn State were destroyed by the media all under the premise that they did nothing to protect a ten year old boy who was raped/assaulted in their showers. In fact, the Grand Jury indictment of former Penn State president Graham Spanier actually makes this, now rather laughable, statement in substantiating the child endanger charges against all three former administrators.

 "There was never any effort made to locate, identify, or otherwise protect Victim 2 from foreseeable future harm. In fact, by notifying Sandusky that they were aware of the incident and not informing the police or a child welfare agency, Spanier, Curley and Schultz placed Victim 2 in even greater danger. Sandusky was placed on notice that others had been informed of his abuse of Victim 2."

We now know that this statement is likely highly inaccurate in many ways.

Both Sanduskys are sure that because of Curley informing the Second Mile about the "McQueary episode," Raykovitz (a mandated reporter) was indeed "made aware" by Jerry that Victim 2 was the boy in the shower. Part of the reason they are so certain this notification was made was that ******* was so well known within the Second Mile itself. In fact, amazingly, Ray Blehar just found a photo of ******* (which, again, we are not posting in order to preserve his identity) speaking at a Second Mile event just a year after the McQueary episode.

Now to be fair, a Second Mile board member vehemently denied to me that Raykovitz ever mentioned who the boy was to him when they spoke just after that conversation with Sandusky. However, this person himself did figure out that it was ******* once the presentment became public and admitted that Raykovitz could have withheld the name from him due to confidentiality concerns.

We also know that the teenage boy spent the next ten years apparently believing and clearly acting as if Jerry Sandusky was his best friend, even living with the Sanduskys for a summer while attending Penn State. Interestingly, it should also be noted that there appears to be a very significant gap in accusations against Sandusky for the years following the 2001 "talking to" by Curley (up until Aaron Fisher whose abuse he clearly blamed on his high school), something Sandusky himself seemed completely unaware of when I asked him about it.

So with regard to this notion that Penn State's actions in 2001 endangered specific children, how did the prosecutors, who were aware of Victim 2's  existence but for obvious reasons didn't call him, even write that paragraph in the Spanier presentment with a straight face? And how many sanctimonious commentators who hung Paterno on that very hook now need to apologize for their over the top comments on this subject?

Here is an exclusive clip of a few minutes from the three and half hours I spoke with Sandusky in which we discuss “Victim 2.” You can decide for yourself if Sandusky’s story, demeanor and tone are credible. (Members of the media please note that this part of the interview is effectively a summary of a previous, much more detailed conversation for which there is a similar and far more comprehensive record. It is also copyrighted material so if you are going to broadcast it you must prominently courtesy www.FramingPaterno.com.)

John: Did you touch the boy known as Victim Two, the boy from the McQueary episode, sexually on the night that he saw, he said he saw you sexually abusing him?

Jerry: No.

John: And you’re positive of that?

Jerry: I’m positive.

John: Did anything happen that could have been misperceived as that?

Jerry: It’s possible. I remember that night we had a long day and we worked out. He was very competitive. He always enjoyed that with me. He turned on all the showers and went sliding. Put soap on himself and was sliding to see how far he could slide. We were horse playing. Maybe slap boxing or slapping towels or something like that. He always got the last hit in. I remember chasing him and kinda grabbing him to kind of pull him back. That was a very short period of time. And he resumed his sliding and we showered and left and I took him home.

John: So when you left that night, you didn’t even think anything of it and didn’t realize anyone had witnessed anything?

Jerry: Absolutely.

John: Until a couple weeks later when Tim Curley talked to you about it?

Jerry: Correct, and that wasn’t, it didn’t really hit me initially when Tim mentioned some incident. I had to try to recollect some things of when that might have possibly happened.

John: What was your relationship with the so-called Victim Two after the 2001 episode?

Jerry: Well, he was family. So we did all kinds of things together. We studied, we exercised, he traveled with us, he did all kind of recreational activities with us, we played golf together, we played racquetball. All kind of competitive games. Ping-Pong, all kind of games in our basement. He was family. At his last football game, he asked for me to stand as his father at his senior night football game with his mother. We attended his wedding. He asked me to speak at his high school graduation. The summer after that, he went to Penn State as a part-time student, we got him a job, and he stayed with us on weekdays and would go home on weekends. As I said, we went to his wedding. The summer before, we played golf together. We stayed in touch. He went into the Marines and we maintained a strong relationship throughout that time period. I helped him academically; he was doing long distance education. I was a go-between providing information for him. I have a text message where he thanked me for everything and said that he loved me.

John: Now in September 2011, during the Grand Jury investigation, you leave two voicemail messages for the person known as Victim Two which appear to be you calling him back after he has told you that someone is asking him to come forward to tell his story. Is this an accurate description of those voicemail messages that you left?

Jerry: Yes to the best of my understanding. I don’t recall every word that I said. I know at that point in time the police had tried to contact him. He shared that with me. He was uncertain as to whether he was even going to go forward and basically I was saying -------, you probably should. I don’t know what would happen if you don’t. You should probably do that. I was trying to advise him you have nothing to hide, so why not?

John: So it was the police asking --------- to come forward and do an interview with them?

Jerry: Correct.

John: And did he do that interview with the police?

Jerry: Yes, he did.

John: And what did he tell the police?

Jerry: I don’t know exactly every word that he told the police, but his interpretation to me was that he told him that nothing had ever happened.

John: So in my investigation it appears to me that in 2011 that the following occurs with so-called Victim Two, --------, and it goes like this. In May he writes a letter to a paper supporting to you. He writes a letter to the Attorney General supporting you. That summer, you play golf with him in a very public setting. He gets interviewed by the police. Tells them nothing happened in the McQueary episode. You get arrested and then he tells Joe Amendola nothing happened in the shower episode that McQueary says he saw and tells an FBI trained investigator that nothing happened in the McQueary episode back in 2001. And then after that, he finds a lawyer and he flips. Is that an accurate representation of 2011 with regard to so-called Victim Two?

Jerry: Correct.

John: How do you explain all that?

Jerry: I can’t. If only you could. There were some problems that he had financially. He’d come out of the service. I don’t know if that affected him. At one point there, I was not allowed to have contact with someone who was very dear to me.

John: How upsetting was that series of events with Victim Two in 2011, --------?

Jerry: It hurt. There have been many painful events surrounding this whole thing, but that was certainly one of the worst along the way.

 

The point here is obviously not to irrationally claim that Sandusky was somehow innocent of all the charges against him, but rather to reasonably piece together what the most likely scenario was in just this one, extremely key, instance. It is only in retrospect that it seems clear that horrendous decisions were being made. Ironically, I get the sense that those involved actually thought at the time that they were coming down very hard on Sandusky.

I am also not (as I am sure I will be wrongly accused of) claiming that Victim 2 is a liar. In fact, in some ways I am defending him as a truth teller. After all, he himself has only ever made exculpatory statements, at least on the record, about what happened that fateful night. I am currently of the belief that he hasn't really changed his story much, if at all, but rather only his (or at least his attorney's)  interpretation of events. For the record, I have called a cell phone number associated with this person which has a voice message from a white male in his twenties whose voice matches a description of Victim 2's, but no one has ever answered or returned my calls. That phone is now disconnected.

My primary point here is this: Can you imagine how differently this all would have turned out for Joe Paterno and Penn State if during that fateful week in November of 2011 it had been immediately known that the infamous “ten year old boy in the shower” was actually almost 14 at the time and was now a married Sergeant in the Marines who was proactively writing letters to the editor and the Attorney General vigorously defending Jerry Sandusky, seriously questioning Mike McQueary's credibility, and telling the police and investigators that he had never been abused at all?

And what if it had been known then that McQueary, on whose testimony virtually the entire case against Paterno and Penn State rests, had been way off not only about the age of the boy, but about the date/year of the episode as well, while also likely being “mistaken” about whether Sandusky and the boy even knew he was there that night and if he ever played in Sandusky's golf tournament after that episode?

Had any of this been known when it really mattered, there seems to be little doubt that the runaway freight train which was barreling down the hill destined to cause multiples acts of injustice would have instantly come to a screeching halt. At the very least there would have been enough time to figure out what really happened here before there were consequences which could never be reversed.

This is why rushing to judgment is so incredibly dangerous, especially in a case with intense media coverage where only the most ratings-friendly narrative gets any attention, where all the primary figures in the story were immediately silenced for various reasons, and where no one in the media had the courage to stand in the path of that train.

Based on what we now know about who “Victim 2” really is, it is clearly past due to revisit the outrageous rush to judgment against Joe Paterno and Penn State. It might also be time for the news media and Penn State's administration to finally redeem themselves at least a little by finding Victim 2 (as well as Mike McQueary) and asking him, or at least his lawyers, some decent questions.

 

Addendum:

Just to make it very clear for media types with an obvious agenda and short attention spans, here is a summary of the overwhelming evidence that the person I write about here is indeed the person claiming to be the “ten year old boy” in the shower (with the obvious stipulation that the starch has been taken out of much of the evidence so that we can protect his name).

The law firm for “Victim 2” says that he is represented by attorney Andrew Shubin and they put out voice messages left for their client by Jerry Sandusky.

Sandusky identified to me that the person he left those messages for as “Victim 2” and said that he thought “Victim 2” had found his lawyer after getting a DUI.

The DUI report for this person in 2012 notes a “second offense” and lists his lawyer as Andrew Shubin.

Sandusky slipped several times on tape referring to “Victim 2” as his first name and is positive that this is the person who he was in the shower during the episode about which he was questioned by Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and the head of the Second Mile charity Jack Raykovitz. It should be noted that, since Victim 2 has now flipped against him, there is absolutely no incentive for Sandusky to lie about him being “the boy in the shower” and that Sandusky, after first refusing to tell me who "Victim 2" was and then later realizing his slip, asked me to not identify him (so this is not some sort of elaborate, nonsensical ruse, cooked up in the chaotic three days between the presentment/Jerry's arrest and the interview, to create a fake "Victim 2" in order to somehow exonerate Sandusky).

Sandusky describes Victim 2 in great detail duplicating the exact profile which this person describes in two published letters to the editor defending Sandusky before the story went national.

Sandusky says that he spoke at Victim 2's high school graduation at West Branch High School in “about 2004 or 2005” and that he stood in for his father at his last football game there. According to Classmates.com this person graduated from West Branch in 2005 and, as the roster we have indicates he played on the varsity football team in 2004.

In my last interview with Sandusky I clearly referred to “Victim 2” by his name and he didn’t blink. I then confirmed with a Sandusky attorney that the man who came to them twice claiming to be “the boy in the shower” was indeed this person and if you look closely at the redacted report we link to, there are still references to his name which have, apparently accidentally, not been redacted (but which we redacted ourselves to protect his name). Dottie Sandusky has also confirmed that Jerry told her contemporaneously in 2001 that he was sure this person was the boy in the shower and that Jerry told the Second Mile that he was the boy when questioned by them about the incident.

Finally, I called several times the cell number which a Sandusky advisor had given me (along with the original versions of the letter to the editor he sent to the papers)  and heard a voice message from a young Caucasian male with a voice matching the description which both Sandusky’s attorney and his wife provided. The person who owns the phone never answered or called me back. That phone number has now been disconnected.

I am quite sure some in the media will not ignore this information because we have not really proven it is "Victim 2," creating an amazing Catch 22. If I reveal the name, I am the devil. If I don't, my findings are ignored. 

This will also happen because he got the date wrong and because Joe Amendola once said publicly that he wasn't sure he was the kid in the shower. The facts are that he was using the widely reported date which the prosecution got wrong in the presentment and that Amendola told me that he only said that he wasn't sure for perfectly logical strategic reasons after Victim 2 "flipped."

As for similar, much stronger comments made by Tom Farrell the attorney for Gary Schultz, I do not understand what his strategic objective is, but it is possible that he did not possess all of the relevant information when he made them (this is why it was important for me to interview Sandusky and he provides never before known details). However, I would ask Farrell what his alternative explanation is. How did the person claiming to be Victim 2 know to match up his story with Sandusky that neither of them saw Mike McQueary during that episode and that Jerry later told him someone from Penn State may be calling him? Is he suggesting that Jerry came up with this complex plan in the one day from the time it was known that McQueary was the witness until when Victim 2 came into Amendola's office the first time? Really?

As for the absurd notion that somehow everyone here is both very badly mistaken and working against their own interests, this bizarre scenario would also require the “real” “Victim 2” to not only stay totally silent at the start of this whole thing, but to remain so even as someone else pretends to be him for money (and for Victim 2's attorneys to somehow know that the "real" "Victim 2" would never come forward). In what world is all of that remotely plausible?

Please. This is the right person.