Updates:
Bradley, Schiano Deny Knowing of Sandusky Abuse
Former Assistant O’Dea Refutes Allegation He Witnessed Sandusky Abuse
Expert Says Penn State Settlements Were Too High
—-
New details of claims from civil suits against Penn State over accusations of abuse by Jerry Sandusky emerged on Tuesday as a Philadelphia judge unsealed documents in Penn State’s lawsuit with its insurer over settlement payments.
The documents provide more information on cases cited by an order from Judge Gary Glazer in May barring coverage by Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association (PMA) Insurance of some Penn State settlements with Sandusky accusers. Among those was an incident alleged to have occurred in 1976 in which a man says he was abused by former assistant coach Sandusky at a Penn State football camp and told Coach Joe Paterno.
According to a deposition unsealed on Tuesday, that man, identified as John Doe 150, was 14-years-old when he attended a Penn State football camp. He said that Sandusky, who founded The Second Mile charity for at-risk youth in 1977, digitally penetrated his rectum while in the shower with about six others also present.
John Doe 150 says he exclaimed in the shower how Sandusky had touched him and later told players and adults, whom he says offered concern but otherwise no reaction.
The following day, he alleges he met Joe Paterno in a hallway to report the accusation. John Doe 150 affirmed an attorney’s statement that Paterno responded by saying “I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about.”
“I said ‘Is that all you’re going to do? You’re not going to do anything else?’” John Doe 150 said in the deposition. He claims Paterno then walked away.
The Paterno family issued a statement denying wrongdoing by the late coach.
“The materials released today relating to Joe Paterno allege a conversation that occurred decades ago where all parties except the accuser are now dead,” the statement read in part. “In addition, there are numerous specific elements of the accusations that defy all logic and have never been subjected to even the most basic objective examination. Most significantly, there is extensive evidence that stands in stark contrast to this claim.”
The full statement is below.
The documents also reveal claims that certain former assistant coaches were aware of or had witnessed abuse by Sandusky.
‘Although settlements have been reached, it also is important to reiterate that the alleged knowledge of former Penn State employees is not proven, and should not be treated as such,’ Penn State President Eric Barron said in a statement, which can be read in full below. ‘Some individuals deny the claims, and others are unable to defend themselves.’
Former assistant Mike McQueary, who says he reported to university administrators a 2001 incident of Sandusky abusing a boy in a locker room shower, said in his deposition that years later he briefly discussed the matter with former assistant coach Tom Bradley. Sandusky’s successor as defensive coordinator after the 1999 season, Bradley had been on the Penn State staff since 1979 and is now defensive coordinator at UCLA.
“He said he knew of some things,” McQueary testified. “He said another assistant coach had come to him in the early 90s about a very similar situation to mine, and he said that he had — someone had come back to him as far back as the early 80s about seeing Jerry doing something with a boy.”
McQueary said Bradley identified the early 90s assistant as Greg Schiano, who would go on to be head coach of Rutgers and the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers and is now an assistant at Ohio State.
‘… Greg had come into his office white as a ghost and said he just saw Jerry doing something to a boy in the shower. And that’s it. That’s all he ever told me,” McQueary said.
McQueary added that he did not know if Bradley reported the alleged incidents.
In an expert report for PMA, risk management and insurance expert Raymond Williams cited six alleged incidents that should have been reported by Penn State to PMA. One of those was a claim that in 1988, former graduate assistant and strength and conditioning assistant Kevin O’Dea allegedly witnessed “improper sexual contact between Sandusky and a minor.”
It appears, however, that O’Dea did not join the Penn State program until 1991. O’Dea was most recently special teams coordinator for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
The accuser in that case, identified as John Doe 101, said in his deposition that Sandusky had been abusing him when O’Dea walked into the room, and that Sandusky made it appear he was rubbing the accuser’s back.
John Doe 101 said that when the Penn State football team stayed at Toftrees Resort on Friday evenings, he frequently would spend those nights in Sandusky’s hotel room, where Sandusky would allegedly abuse him. As John Doe 101 got older, Sandusky would also bring other children to stay in the hotel. John Doe 101 said he did not see other children being abused, but did witness what he called inappropriate contact such as wrestling and hugging. He claimed Sandusky also fondled him in the pool at Penn State’s Natatorium on occasions when they were with groups of other Second Mile children.
Another accuser, John Doe 75, said in his deposition that in the summer of 1987 former assistant coach Joe Sarra walked into the football coaches’ meeting room when Sandusky had his hand inside the waistband of the then-13-year-old’s shorts. He said Sarra may have said ‘Oh, sorry,’ before leaving. Sarra, who was primarily a defensive assistant under Sandusky beginning in 1984, died in 2012.
After the allegations that assistant coaches in the 1980s were aware of alleged abuse by Sandusky emerged in May, Pennsylvania Solicitor General Bruce Castor said that Office of the Attorney General investigators had looked into those accusations during their Sandusky investigation and found them to be without merit.
‘The reports turned out to be double and triple hearsay and of no value, with the coaches in question each denying they saw anything,’ Castor told the Associated Press. ‘So dead ends there all around.’
A deposition from a man identified as John Doe 102, says in the late 1980s he was residing at Nittany House, which was formerly a home in State College for troubled teenaged boys and not operated by Penn State, when he was abused by Sandusky. He said that he left the house without permission one evening and was abused by Sandusky.
John Doe 102 said that the next day he told the house’s supervisor, Cliff Gordon, about the incident and that Gordon yelled at him for sneaking out and because he believed that Gordon thought he was lying.
Several hours later, John Doe 102 said he saw Sandusky and another man leaving the house. He said he was unsure who the other man was but that his last name sounded like ‘Harman’ or ‘Carman.’ An attorney for PMA suggested that the man was then Penn State athletic director Jim Tarman.
John Doe 102 says Gordon told him he was to write a letter of apology to Sandusky and the other man, though he did not indicate for what he should apologize. John Doe 102 never wrote the apology or discussed it further with Gordon. He said he then heard Gordon and another staff member ‘screaming and yelling’ in an office and that he ran away from the house.
A deposition from a man identified as John Doe 200 appears to represent the first known accusation of Sandusky also abusing a girl. John Doe 200 claimed that in the mid-1990s Sandusky took him and a girl to a dwelling in a wooded area where he said Sandusky appeared to have intercourse with the girl before having the teenaged boy masturbate him.
Sandusky was convicted in June 2012 on 45 counts related to child sexual abuse and sentenced to 30-60 years in state prison. He is seeking a new trial under the Post-Conviction Relief Act
Paterno Family Statement
From the beginning, the Paterno family has been outspoken in their desire for the complete truth in the Sandusky tragedy. They have also repeatedly called for due process for all affected parties. With this latest release of information, the total mishandling of the Sandusky investigation is highlighted once again.
The overwhelming evidence confirms that Joe Paterno never engaged in a cover up of Jerry Sandusky’s crimes. Multiple independent parties have confirmed this conclusion. In fact, consistent with University rules, Joe reported an allegation about Sandusky to administration officials. As President Barron stated in his message to the University earlier today, an environment where faculty and staff feel protected in reporting wrongdoing is a key objective of the University.
The materials released today relating to Joe Paterno allege a conversation that occurred decades ago where all parties except the accuser are now dead. In addition, there are numerous specific elements of the accusations that defy all logic and have never been subjected to even the most basic objective examination. Most significantly, there is extensive evidence that stands in stark contrast to this claim.
That Penn State chose to settle claims without fully assessing the underlying facts is something that the University obviously felt they had to do to help resolve this matter. We understand their desire for closure, but it does not remotely validate the assertions about an uncorroborated conversation with Joe Paterno.
Statement from Penn State President Eric Barron
Today, information is being released by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas related to a lawsuit between Penn State and its insurer, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association. For its part, the University does not plan to provide additional comment on these matters, as this information has largely already been covered by media.
Penn State’s overriding concern has been, and remains, for the victims of Jerry Sandusky. While individuals hold different opinions, and may draw different inferences from the testimony about former Penn State employees, speculation by Penn State is not useful. We must be sensitive to all individuals involved, and especially to those who may be victims of child sexual abuse. It also makes it much more difficult for Penn State to create an environment where victims of sexual abuse feel comfortable coming forward and where students, faculty and staff feel protected in reporting wrongdoing.
Although settlements have been reached, it also is important to reiterate that the alleged knowledge of former Penn State employees is not proven, and should not be treated as such. Some individuals deny the claims, and others are unable to defend themselves.
Speculation also serves to drive a wedge within the Penn State community. I would ask that we remember our University’s primary mission is to focus on research, education and service. Let’s be respectful of other viewpoints and focus on our mission. The University is committed to ensuring our campuses are safe for children, and to ongoing prevention and education programs and research that contribute to a better society.
I want to thank our Penn State community for caring so deeply about not only our university during these difficult times, but also for the victims of child abuse.
Eric J. Barron
President
