The attorney for Jerry Sandusky says one of the two new cases of alleged sexual abuse under investigation by Children and Youth Services was made by a family member of Sandusky.Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal notes that the attorneys for the two Penn State officials charged with perjury are likely to attack the credibility of another assistant coach.
The Patriot-News reported yesterday that the new cases were reported less than 60 days ago and are in the initial stages of investigation.
Attorney Joe Amendola said the allegations stem from difficulties within the child's immediate family. He said the assault is alleged to have occurred prior to Sandusky's arrest earlier this month, but was not brought to the authorities attention until after the former Penn State coach was charged.
The Patriot-News is withholding the child's relationship to Sandusky to shield the child's identity.
Mr. [Mike] McQueary testified that he witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the shower of a Penn State locker room on March 1, 2002, according to a grand jury presentment released by the state attorney general's office. Mr. Sandusky has been charged with molesting eight boys over a 15 year period. He denies the charges.
Mr. McQueary, who has not been charged in connection with the investigation, also testified that he told former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno about the incident and later described the event to two other university officials.
Tim Curley, the university's former athletic director, and former vice president Gary Schultz have each been charged with one count of perjury in connection with their grand jury testimony and one count of failure to report sexual abuse. Both men have denied the charges through their attorneys and not commented on the case or the charges. A letter sent by lawyers their lawyers, Thomas J. Farrell and Caroline Roberto, to the Pennsylvania attorney general's office and obtained by The Wall Street Journal reveals a key part of their defense strategy.Finally, the Patriot-News has issued a forceful defense of its policy of refusing to offer any details of Victim No. 1.