Who was the boy that graduate assistant Mike McQueary said he saw Sandusky rape in 2001 in a locker-room shower – an accusation that not only helped put Sandusky away, but brought down head football coach Joe Paterno, and led to charges against former Pennsylvania State University president Graham B. Spanier and two others?
Advertisement
But Sandusky prosecutor Joseph McGettigan, who had several testy exchanges with Lindsay while on the witness stand on Tuesday, dismissed that assertion.
Lindsay sought to link the 2011 Pulitzer Prize-winning expose of Sandusky by Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter Sara Ganim to illegal grand jury leaks by prosecutors.
The former Penn State assistant football coach claims McGettigan lied during closing arguments when he said Victim 2 was known “to God but not to us”.
Sandusky is serving a 30- to 60-year sentence.
But he subsequently hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who testified Monday on the second day of the hearing that he believes his client is Victim 2 and was raped by Sandusky, who was in court.
Kline continued, “When he did these awful deeds, he had a fair trial and was convicted”.
Victim two was never a part of Sandusky’s trial.
Mr. Shubin’s involvement also caused concern among investigators. But he said the man is his client and he would not represent anyone he did not believe. McGettigan said the man was unable to properly describe the location of the attack and drew a map of a locker room that was not accurate.
Sandusky himself had told the Second Mile board that he was under investigation when he resigned in late 2010.
Asked whether he was saying the 10 boys who accused Sandusky of the sexual assault were liars, Lindsay said only that their testimony was factually inaccurate.
McGettigan, however, insisted Tuesday he did not lie about the boy’s identity, testifying, “I did not know then, and I do not now”.
“I have never spoken about that issue and never waived that privilege”, Shubin testified.
“No one took the bait”, said former Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach. Shubin said he was insistent that he be present for all his clients interviews with prosecutors because abuse victims have difficulty establishing trust. The prosecution did not call him as a witness because they believed he wasn’t fully credible. He said, “Our position has always been that we felt if we could get a hearing and have a total airing of the circumstances, we would get a new trial”.
“There were many pieces of testimony that we’re excited about”, Lindsay said after court recessed, without elaborating on specifics.
Advertisement
In his testimony Tuesday, Fina offered an alternative explanation: The witnesses called before the secret grand jury early in 2011 weren’t barred from discussing their testimony publicly – and may have become sources for the newspaper.
