Sandusky trial's first day sets tone: Mentor vs. abuser
BELLEFONTE -- He slept at Jerry Sandusky's home, was showered with gifts, even got to attend bowl games with the former Penn State football coach and his wife.
But all the while, a northern Pennsylvania boy who would become the young man known in court documents as "Victim 4" was hiding a terrible secret: The soap battles and wrestling that Sandusky initiated with him in a coaches' shower shortly after they met escalated to sex acts, the man, 28, testified on Monday.
The state's highly anticipated first witness in the trial and scandal that rocked Penn State spent most of the afternoon on the stand, producing a signed contract between Sandusky and the then-teenager, as well as love letters written to the boy and signed by the renowned coach.
Sandusky, 68, is on trial on 52 counts of sexually abusing 10 boys over a span of 15 years, many times inside campus athletic buildings. Prosecutors say he used The Second Mile, a charity for at-risk youth, to meet the children.
Sandusky maintains his innocence, and defense attorney Joe Amendola told jurors they should question the motives of his accusers.
"What Jerry would do was out of his love and his desire to see these kids succeed," Amendola said during opening statements to the Centre County jury of seven women and five men.
Even though Judge John M. Cleland ordered Sandusky's accusers to testify using their own names, prosecutors went to great lengths to shield them from the public eye, having a tunnel built for them to use as they come and go from the courthouse during the trial, which is expected to last about three weeks. The Tribune-Review does not identify accusers in sex assault cases.
Asked if he ever told anyone of his relationship with Sandusky, Victim 4, a slender man with neatly trimmed brown hair, answered curtly and with little emotion: "No."
Asked if he ever said anything to Sandusky, he said "no."
"I was too scared. ... Other than that, things were nice, and I didn't want to lose that," he said.
The man described in detail how he slowly was absorbed into the coach's life and later attempted to extricate himself from it, even as Sandusky pressed him to continue the relationship -- at one point giving him money to buy marijuana and letting him smoke it in his car.
The man said he was 13 when he met Sandusky in 1997 and that their first inappropriate contact was at a picnic when Sandusky was tossing children into a lake and brushed the boy's genitals twice. Sandusky began showering with the boy and initiating "soap battles," which led to more than 50 sexual incidents over the next five years, the man testified.
Sandusky's wife, Dottie, walked in on Sandusky and the boy together in a hotel room bathroom when they traveled to the Alamo Bowl at one point, the man testified, and she quickly walked out. Dottie Sandusky and several of Jerry Sandusky's adult children attended the trial's opening. Dottie Sandusky and Matt Sandusky, the couple's adult son, are expected to testify during the trial and were asked to leave the courtroom as witnesses were being sequestered.
The man produced a signed "contract." He said Sandusky pressed him into signing three separate contracts, ostensibly under the auspices of The Second Mile, in which he agreed to do his school work, participate in sports and meet with Sandusky. In return, he was to receive small financial rewards, including up to $1,000 for college.
The accuser said he signed the contracts only to get Sandusky to leave him alone.
Mark McCann, then-program director of The Second Mile, testified that the contracts were not part of any of the charity's programs.
Prosecutors presented a series of letters Sandusky penned to the young man, telling him how much he meant to the coach and encouraging him to do well. In one letter, Sandusky described himself as the "great pretender" and asked that the young man remember that his affection for him was not pretend.
When Sandusky called him at his grandmother's home, the teenager would ask his grandmother to tell the coach he wasn't home. When Sandusky would come to the home, the child would hide, he said.
Defense attorneys counter that the letters show evidence of histrionic personality disorder, a condition in which someone behaves in a dramatic fashion to get attention, rather than attempts by Sandusky to seduce boys.
Cleland has yet to rule on a motion by the defense seeking to introduce expert testimony that Sandusky suffers from the disorder.
Under questioning from Senior Deputy Attorney General Joseph McGettigan, the accuser insisted he did not want to become part of the investigation when he was first contacted.
"Did you go to the police?" McGettigan asked.
"No, they came and found me," he said.
Under questioning from Amendola, the man said he hired an attorney before police contacted him but hasn't filed a lawsuit.
Amendola told jurors that the accuser brought his girlfriend and newborn baby to see Sandusky and his wife at their home a few years ago in a visit that one witness will describe was "like he was bringing his family to meet his father." Amendola said Sandusky treated the boys he took in via his charity like his own sons.
McGettigan projected photos of Sandusky's accusers as children on a large screen and painted him as a serial pedophile who psychologically manipulated them and used them for sexual purposes.
The trial resumes Tuesday morning.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.