Civil Suit Filed Against Sandusky, Penn State

Lawsuit says John Doe A was assaulted between 92-96. They contend PSU and Second Mile should have known Sandusky’s history. But, first victim from GJ testimony had abuse start in ’94 and PSU and Second Mile were not alerted to anything until ’98. Not sure how they will be able to the negligence of PSU and Second Mile in terms of this particular lawsuit.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, I have one question about this though.

…I’m writing this statement and taking this action because I don’t want other kids to be hurt and abused by Jerry Sandusky…

If this was your reason for taking this action, why did you take it 20 years after the fact? Everything has already hit the fan, he isn’t out preying on kids now. I’m not blaming the victim or anything like that, I just find that wording strange/disingenious.

Whether PSU was negligent or not, the name “Penn State” will be raked through the coals for the next year via media court coverage. Like OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony and Blackwater.

I believe this is the second mention by an alleged victim of abuse on a Penn State bowl trip. With allegations that Sandusky transported a minor across state lines, sexually assaulted the boy in another state, and then returned with him to PA, are there grounds for federal investigators to get involved?

Those who are questioning the PA attorney general’s handling of this process and are anxious for another “pair of eyes” on this case might have an in here, perhaps? Interested to hear if anyone is able to shed some more light on this.

On page 9:

…(a) that Sandusky had been molesting children since at least the 1970’s and (b) that many children after 2002 would not have been sexually assaulted by Sandusky.

Then, later, on page 10:

…many children after 2008 would not have been sexually assaulted by Sandusky.

So according to this complaint, Sandusky’s been abusing kids since at least the ’70s, and many children since as recently as 2008.

Two questions:
(1) Is this true?
(2) If yes, how in the hell do they know this, and can they prove it?

Do the people interviewed by the GJ have any legal restrictions placed upon them that would prohibit talking about their testimony, or are they free to tell their story to whomever they choose?

Why can Penn State be sued directly here? Has Pennsylvania generally waived governmental immunity, or is Penn State an institution not entitled to it under PA law? What I see here is a 1983 claim shoehorned into state court (and in Philadelphia, to boot, which I assume is a pro-plaintiff county) in order to try this under a negligence standard rather than deliberate indifference. I don’t see how it’ll work …

his complaint predates even the 1998 investigation by the missing prosecutor.

And now the Victim 2 portion of the Grand Jury Report is brought into further doubt. If the defense is being truthful and Victim 2 has come forward to state that Mike McQueary’s alleged statements as summarized by the Grand Jury Report are false. If he told representatives of PSU who got his phone number and questioned him in March of 2002 that there was no sexual contact and only horseplay it seems we are left with the victim the janitor saw who is not identified as the only other victim whose abuse was specifically accomplished on PSU property.

The claim is that PSU knew or should have known about credible allegations against Sandusky and is therefor liable and named in this lawsuit. Victim one says some of his abuse occurred in the locker room showers. But the extent of the 1998 incident was a shower and possible inappropriate incidental genital contact that never resulted in charges or prosecution in 1998.
Again at the time of the janitor sighting there was no victim identified and no prosecution or charges and no way to know if anyone in authority at PSU had reason to suspect wrong doing.
So it seems to boil down the the 2002 allegations – If victim 2 told PSU authorities that nothing sexual happened to him we are left once again with no credible reason to suspect Penn State of negligence. Someone investigated McQueary’s possible claim and were informed by the victim that nothing bad happened.

The actions of the Board of Trustees and the DA are what put PSU in the most civil liability risk because those actions make it appear that their responsible administrators were remiss in their actions. But what if the were not negligent. What if they did inquire and find that there was no cause for action against Sandusky because the alleged victim was no victim at all?

I’m not shocked by anything anymore anyways, though I do hope PSU fights it IF this Defense claim about Victim 2 comes out true.