Continued from page 1

He said after talking to his father, he went over to Paterno’s home the next morning and said that what he had seen “was way over the lines, it was extremely sexual in nature.” He said he would not have used words like sodomy or intercourse with Paterno, out of respect for the coach.

Paterno told the grand jury that McQueary said he saw Sandusky doing something of a “sexual nature” with the youngster but that he didn’t press for details.

“I didn’t push Mike … because he was very upset,” Paterno said. “I knew Mike was upset, and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.”

Paterno told McQueary he would talk to others about what he’d reported.

McQueary said he met about 10 days later with Curley and Schultz and told them he’d seen Sandusky and a boy, both naked, in the shower after hearing skin-on-skin slapping sounds.

“I would have described that it was extremely sexual and I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on,” said McQueary.

McQueary said he was left with the impression both men took his report seriously. When asked why he didn’t go to police, he referenced Schultz’s position as a vice president at the university who had overseen the campus police

“I thought I was talking to the head of the police, to be frank with you,” he said. “In my mind it was like speaking to a (district attorney). It was someone who police reported to and would know what to do with it.”

The square-jawed, red-haired assistant coach spoke in a steady voice in his first public account of the alleged abuse, sometimes turning his seat and leaning in toward defense lawyers to answer questions. His voice rose a few times and he blushed once when describing the sexual encounter in the shower.

Defense lawyers for Curley and Schultz argued that a perjury charge in Pennsylvania cannot be based solely on one person’s oath versus another’s. The defense said uncorroborated testimony from McQueary is not enough, and sought to pick apart the ways he described the shower scene differently to different people.

The defense noted that McQueary admitted changing his description of the shower encounter when speaking with Paterno.

McQueary said he had stopped by a campus football locker room to drop off a pair of sneakers the Friday night before spring break, a quiet night on campus, when he saw Sandusky with a boy who looked to be 10 or 12 years old.

McQueary, 37, said he has never described what he saw as anal rape or anal intercourse and couldn’t see Sandusky’s genitals, but that “it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on.”

In its report last month, the grand jury summarized McQueary’s testimony as saying he “saw a naked boy … with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.”

McQueary said he peeked into the shower three times — the first via a mirror, the other two times directly. The last time he looked in, Sandusky and the boy had separated, he said. He said he didn’t say anything, but “I know they saw me. They looked directly in my eye, both of them.”

Story Continues →