ShareThis Page
Home

Prosecutors: Wrong year cited for incident in Sandusky case

| Monday, May 7, 2012, 4:40 p.m.

Prosecutors from the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office conceded in court papers filed this afternoon that they cited the wrong year when they charged Jerry Sandusky with sexually abusing a boy in a Penn State locker room shower that was allegedly witnessed by then-football graduate assistant Mike McQueary. In a petition filed in Centre County Court, seeking to alter the original charges, Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina said today it was February 2001 -- not March 2002 -- when McQueary saw Sandusky sexually abusing a naked boy in a deserted locker room shower. McQueary testified it was March 2002 at Sandusky's preliminary hearing. Victim 2 has been identified as approximately 10-year-old boy at that time, but has never been identified to date. "As a result of specific and authenticated findings as part of the Commonwealth's ongoing investigation, it has been determined that the offense date committed against Victim 2 was on or about Feb. 9, 2001, in the evening at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park campus of the Penn State University," prosecutors said in the petition.

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.

click me