Man claiming to be shower victim testifies in Sandusky case

Chad Pradelli Image
Saturday, November 5, 2016
VIDEO: Sandusky
A man who claims he was victim No. 2, who was seen being abused by Jerry Sandusky in a locker room shower, testified for the first time Friday afternoon.

BELLEFONTE, Pa. (WPVI) -- A man who claims he was victim No. 2, who was seen being abused by Jerry Sandusky in a locker room shower, testified for the first time Friday afternoon.

During a contentious exchange, the man testified he was the boy whom former Penn State coach Mike McQueary claims he saw being sexually abused in a football facility in 2001.

Victim No. 2 testified, initially, he told prosecutors and then defense attorney, Joe Amendola, that he had never been abused by the iconic coach.

During the criminal trial, victim No. 2 was a defense witness. That's is until he changed his story and said he too was a victim. He eventually received a settlement from Penn State.

Appellate attorneys believe prosecutors hid information that didn't help their case.

Prosecutors have said they didn't believe the man was credible and definitely victim No. 2, so he was never called to testify during the criminal trial.

"We thought it's important to get out what he had said, namely that he was not abused, and that Mr. McQueary's statements were incorrect," said Al Lindsay, defense attorney.

Jennifer Storm is a victim advocate who spoke on behalf of victim No. 2, who doesn't want to be identified.

"It's incredibly common for victims of sexual violence to not be forthcoming initially. Sometimes it takes them months, years, weeks. You have to understand that in this case there was so much pressure on this young man," said Jennifer Storm, victim advocate.

Over the course of the appeal hearing, Sandusky's attorneys have tried to argue the convicted pedophile didn't get an adequate defense because his attorneys didn't have enough time to prepare, and they believe grand jury leaks hindered their defense.

Judge John Cleland told both sides to provide briefs outlining their arguments by next Friday. Then he was will decide whether oral arguments will be heard before he makes a ruling.