cWarning: Details from Friday’s court hearing may include graphic details that readers may find upsetting
UPDATE: Judge William Wenner ruled Friday afternoon that the prosecution has met it's burden in the case against former Penn State officials Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. The two will now face trial.
Former Penn State officials Tim Curley and Gary Schultz face charges based on evidence that they lied to a grand jury and didn't stop the abuse, according to the grand jury presentment. The prosecution laid out its case at Friday's hearing.
Cameras were not allowed in the courtroom, but In Session and HLN reporters and producers in the courtroom now sent us electronic updates.
Get caught up on what happened at Friday's hearing by reading our live blog:
[3:18 p.m. ET] The judge rules the prosecution has met it's burden of proof, and the case will go to trial.
[3:15 p.m. ET] Defense attorney Farrell is now arguing before judge about perjury crime.
His assessment is that a crime had or had not occurred is an opinion. Along those same lines, a perjury charge must be based on a material statement that has some bearing on action from the grand jury. He also says there is no Paterno corroboration. He also mentions that John McQueary said that when he met with Schultz he described something sexual in nature. That corroborates Schultz testimony. He testified anal sex was never described to Schultz. The commonwealth’s main witness was not corroborated by his father.
Roberto: Perjury has to be more than he said/she said or in this case he said/he said. Has to be more than an oath against an oath. So if you have McQueary coming forward with his description under oath and then you have Curley testimony that he was not give that same graphic info, you would not have perjury. Case law states that. Corroboration – may not be established with the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. I believe that Paterno’s testimony may be utilized by the commonwealth to corroborate what McQueary told Curley. Paterno said there was fondling, inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature. Paterno said I don’t know how you would describe that behavior. Perjury is a difficult crime to prove. We need to have precision in the language and we don’t have it. The evidence is insufficient to hold for trial because the statue required that the Commonwealth prove that there is corroboration.
Prosecutor: What is criminal in nature? Is a grown man in a shower with a young boy grabbing his genitals inappropriate?
Prosecutor: But not criminal?
Schultz: Don’t know if it’s criminal. Tim trusted Jerry and it Jerry said he wouldn’t do it again, he believed him.
Prosecutor: Did the university take steps to make sure it wouldn’t happen again? With Jerry?
[2:40 p.m. ET] Gary Schultz’s grand jury testimony continues to be read in open court:
Prosecutor: Did you agree with Curley’s decision on how to handle?
Schultz: We reached an agreement.
Prosecutor: Any notes?
Shultz: I believe notes were taken at the time. I’ve had quite a number of files of a confidential matter. I would think most of my notes prior to 2009 were destroyed.
Prosecutor: Did Spanier know of 1998 investigation?
Prosecutor: Was he aware that 2002 was very similar to 1998?
Schultz: I honestly don’t recall that in 98 I knew details of that allegation. I do remember a mother reported, but I don’t know if it was in the Lasch building. I didn’t ask for police reports.
Prosecutor: After the 2002 incident, did you seek out the 1998 report to find out what it was that Sandusky was alleged to have done?
Schultz: No I did not. I honestly didn’t know the procedures. I thought the police had turned it over, handled independently.
Prosecutor: You didn’t think the university police would have a record?
Schultz: They didn’t investigate. It was another agency.
Prosecutor: Did you see Jerry with kids after 2002?
Schultz: I would see him in the presence of young adults, sure
Prosecutor: With kids from Second Mile?
Schultz: Yes…I would see them at official Second Mile events.
Prosecutor: At practice?
Schultz: No, Jerry was a physical guy with everyone. Would punch you in the arm. Wrestle with people. Clowning around I thought that might have been when he may have grabbed his genitals.
Prosecutor: Grabbing genitals of boys is sexual?
Prosecutor: It doesn;’t happen accidentally?
Schultz: I explained what I really thought was going on. I don’t recall specifically what Mike said. But it was impression that’s what probably took place.
Prosecutor: No intercourse?
Schultz: I had no impression of anything else, just my observation of Jerry and the kind of horsing around he does.
Prosecutor: And so you thought oh they must be wrestling and he might have touched his genitals?
Prosecutor: Was Mike upset?
Schultz: I don’t recall him being upset.
Prosecutor: Would you be surprised that the univ police had a 95 page report of what happened in 1998?
[2:20 p.m. ET] Gary Schultz’s grand jury testimony is being read in open court:
Prosecutor: With regard to PSU athletic program? Explain position to Curley?
Schultz: Curley directly reports to the president of the university, but he also would report to me as well.
Prosecutor: Did you recall a meeting with Paterno?
Schultz: Yes, He (JoPa) indicated that someone said behavior in a locker room that was inappropriate and disturbing.
Prosecutor: Who told him?
Schultz: A student or a grad student
Prosecutor: Who engaged in the conduct?
Schultz: Jerry Sandusky and some unnamed boy.
Prosecutor: Who is Sandusky?
Schultz: He is a retired assistant football coach.
Prosecutor: Where did incident occur?
Schultz: The Lasch building
Prosecutor: Coaches have offices there?
Prosecutor: Sandusky had access?
Prosecutor: Was there a meeting with Mike McQueary?
Schultz: I think it took place in my office. My recollection was Paterno described it in a general way.
Prosecutor: Do you have the impression it was inappropriate? Wrestling around activity. Sandusky grabbed the boys genitals. Would you say that was inappropriate?
Prosecutor: Recall anything more specific?
Schultz: I don’t recall.
Prosecutor: Did you consult with Curley?
Schultz: We had a conversation at that time.
Prosecutor: What was done?
Schultz: We decided that it was inappropriate and to tell him he should not bring kids onto campus or the football program.
Prosecutor: In 2002 you were aware of 1998?
Prosecutor: You didn’t meet with Sandusky?
More from Schultz’s grand jury to come…
Prosecutor: Did it not occur to you that something sexual was going on?
Curley: I was not aware that there was sexual activity.
Prosecutor: If you didn’t think it was sexual in nature then why bar him from the facilities?
Curley: Because I didn’t think it was appropriate for him to bring young people to the showers and horsing around.
Prosecutor: The decision to limit Sandusky’s access to university property was made by who?
Prosecutor: The Decision not to report to police made by you?
Prosecutor: Just to be clear, you didn’t do this in a vacuum, you did this and it was affirmed by supervisors.
Curley: Yes, I don’t remember any report to me that it was sexual in nature. Whether I knew it at the time, thought it was a Second Mile kid, so I thought it was appropriate to tell The Second Mile.
Prosecutor: If not sexual or any indication why would did you take the extraordinary step of going outside and tell The Second Mile?
Curley: Because I thought Mike was uncomfortable with the behavior and didn’t think it was appropriate for Jerry to be in the showers with a young person.
Prosecutor: How long after Paterno called you that you had the meeting?
Curley: Don’t recall exactly but within a week.
Prosecutor How long until you notified supervisors of your decision?
Curley: I would say within two weeks
Curley’s grand jury testimony is finished, and Schultz’s testimony from the grand jury is up next.
Curley says he was employed as the athletic director of Penn State University since 1993>
Curley: Coach Paterno indicated that he had an assistant football coach with info of something he’d encountered in the locker room, and he was going to workout and instead he heard and saw two people in the shower area. McQueary told Curley his recollection was there was a mirror he could see what was going on.
Curley testifies that he can’t recall specific information, but he does remember that Mike could hear people in the shower area – that they were horsing around and it was inappropriate.
Prosecutor: Anal intercourse?
Curley: Absolutely not. He did not tell me that.
Prosecutor: Did he say it was a small child?
Curley: I can’t recall how he described – young adult, a young child? Just a child. I can’t recall specifically? Wrestling body contact and they were horsing around.
Curley: I assumed.
Prosecutor: Sexual conduct?
Prosecutor: Of any kind?
Prosecutor: But he was uncomfortable with what he saw?
Prosecutor: Did Sandusky admit to the shower?
Curley: Not initially.
Prosecutor: Did he ultimately come around?
Curley: He initially said he didn;’t think he was there on that day. He subsequently admitted to it on the phone Did you take specific action ? I told him I was reporting to Second Mile and that I didn’t want him bringing children to the locker room, and I informed Gary Schultz. I don’t recall specific conversation with Gary. I did say I think this and the appropriate action.
Prosecutor: Did you call police?
Prosecutor: Did you bring it to the attention of the University president?
Prosecutor: Are you aware of any other incidents with Sandusky and kids?
Prosecutor: Would a criminal incident have been reported to you?
Curley: In most cases
Prosecutor: But the 98 incident was not reported to you?
Prosecutor: Have you ever heard anything about inappropriate contact with Sandusky and young men?
Prosecutor: Was the 2002 incident reported to University Police?
Prosecutor Beemer is reading the questions, and a person from the Attorney General’s office reads Joe Paterno’s responses.
Paterno: McQueary did call me on a Saturday morning and there was something he wanted to discuss. He had seen a person, fondling, not sure of term, a young boy.
Pateron: Jerry Sandusky who had been a coach nut not at that time.
Prosecutor: You used the term fondling?
Paterno: I don’t know what you would call it. Doing something with a youngster. Don’t know what it was. I didn’t push Mike because he was very upset. So I didn’t go any further. I knew Mike was upset and something inappropriate happened with a youngster.
Prosecutor: Did you tell Mike what you were going to do with the info?
Paterno: Not sure of specifics. I told Mike he did the right thing by telling me. Even though Sandusky doesn’t work here any more I would refer it to the right people.
Prosecutor: This was Satuday morning?
Paterno: Yes, I reported it within the week.
Prosecutor: To whom did you share the info?
Paterno: Tim Curley I thought Curley would handle it appropriately. I had great confidence in him.
Cross examination by Roberto:
Sassano says he checked the State Police to see if any charges had been filed against Sandusky, and found nothing.
Sassano is Excused.
Beemer asks the court examine the three grand jury transcripts and have them read into the record.
The judge call for a recess until 1:45 p.m ET. We will resume the live blog then!
Manderbach is excused for the witness stand.
The kast prosecution witness will be Anthony Sassano, an agent with the Attorney General’s office.
She says she recorded the testimony of Tim Curley and Gary Shultz on January 12th, 2011 under oath.
She also says she took the took testimony of Joe Paterno.
Farrell goes back to the discussion the witness had with Gary Schultz.
McQueary’s father: "I wanted him to listen as an officer of the University ... and ensure that some action was taken."
He agrees he told Schultz whatever he felt was significant to convey the incident - and doesn't recall Schultz asking him for more details.
McQueary’s father: "He wasn't acting like an investigator, he was discussing it with me."
Farrell: “Did he tell him a crime had been committed?”
McQueary’s father: "I never used the word crime ... made clear that at least it was a very inappropriate action."
Farrell: "You never used the words anal sex with Mr. Schultz?”
McQueary’s father: “Absolutely not. Or the word rape?”
McQueary’s father: “No I did not.”
Farrell: “How about the words sexual assault?
McQueary’s father: “No I did not."
McQueary’s father: “Yes. We have business together. We met at my office.”
Beemer: Who was present?
McQueary’s father: “Dr. Dranov who was my boss at the time. I told him I wanted to talk to him about another serious matter. He told him something should be done about it or followed up on it.”
Beemer: “Did you describe what happened and the nature of the contact? That he saw Sandusky in the shower room with a young boy and between sounds he heard and what he saw that it was at best inappropriate but sexual in nature.”
McQueary’s father: “I said ‘appeared to be sexual.’ If you’re asking me if he left the meeting knowing something sexual in nature happened in the shower then yes. I was expecting something to be done. I knew Schultz to be a good person and respectful. He indicated to me he knew about it and something was being done.
Prosecutor Beemer finishes his questioning of John McQueary.
Curley’s defense attorney Roberto is now questioning him.
@sganim Sara Ganim
Dad: "I told Mike he should report it to his boss, his supervisor, Joe Paterno"
Brief redirect by Beemer, which spurs cross by Roberto:
Roberto: “The only individual that Harmon told about the -98 investigation was Schultz - not Roberto's client, correct?”
Harmon is released and exits the courtroom.
[11:27 a.m. ET] Prosecutor Beemer finishes his questioning of Harmon.
Curley’s defense attorney Roberto doesn’t ask questions.
Schultz’s defense attorney Farrell is now cross examining Harmon.
[11:24 a.m. ET] Harmon says he chose to refer the 1998 matter to the District Attorney, but was eventually informed the DA had decided not to pursue it as a criminal offense.
He is now being asked about the 2002 incident, Harmon says he never received a complaint regarding that and has no reason to believe anyone with the department did.
Harmon says, "We would have investigated it and again there would have been immediate notification of the District Attorney under the circumstances. "
[11:20 a.m. ET] Direct by prosecutor Bruce Beemer: He goes into the 1998 incident reported to an investigator by the mother of a juvenile.
Harmon describes the incident: "It involved coach Sandusky taking the juvenile who I believe was in the age range 10-12 to the Lasch building on campus on a Sunday morning ... after which they showered and during the course of the showering, the mother reported that coach Sandusky had hugged the child from the rear."
There was nothing overtly sexual about the description that was relayed to Harmon, he says.
Harmon says he DID tell Gary Schultz about the incident, but is not sure he mentioned the boy's age.
[11:14 a.m. ET] Prosecutors call their next witness: Thomas R. Harmon, retired Director of University Police. Held that title 1998-2002.
[11:12 a.m. ET] Farrell: “Just to be clear, Mr. Schultz never told you not to discuss what you saw?"
McQueary: "No, neither gentleman ever said, 'Mike you can't talk about this.'"
End of Farrell’s cross examination, redirect by Prosecutor Beemer:
Beemer: “Did Curley or Schultz ever tell him they told police about the incident?”
McQueary: "No, they never told me that."
End, of redirect.
McQueary is done with his testimony and exits room.
[11:10 a.m. ET] McQueary says he took steps to avoid Sandusky after the incident:
Farrell asks for a moment to consults with Curley’s defense attorney Roberto.
[11:06 a.m. ET] Farrell's questioning is not terribly streamlined. He asks whether he ever saw a look of pain on the boy's face. McQueary says he did not. He asks whether McQueary knew Penn State had uniformed police officers with firearms, and McQueary says he did.
McQueary says he did not inquire about the boy after the incident, nor was he updated on the boy.
Farrell goes back to what words were used when he described the incident to Paterno:
Farrell: "Did you use the phrase 'sexual assault'?
McQueary: “I probably used the word sexual ... I think it's clear that I can't remember the exact words that I used."
McQueary is asked about the conversations he had about the incident after the fact, and says he informally told people he didn't think it was right Sandusky was still around.
[11:00 a.m. ET] Farrell asks McQueary if heard slapping sounds in the shower that sounded like sex. McQueary says he did hear slapping sounds. Farrell proceeds to demonstrate slapping sounds to see if that’s what he meant, and McQueary says, “You got it.”
[10:55 a.m. ET] Defense Attorney Farrell presses McQueary on the security camera installment in the locker room by going through where cameras were and if they were eventually installed, It seems clear Ferrell is intending to challenge the notion that they were installed as a result of the incident.
Farrell asks, "Did you think you saw a crime happening?
Farrell: "A crime is something of course that would require police action, isn't it? ...
Farrell: “But, neither you nor your father called the police, nor did anyone else.”
Farrell now asking about the mirror in which he first saw the reflection of Sandusky and the boy:
Farrell: "You could see Mr. Sandusky's back, is that right? His whole backside. What about the boy?”
McQueary: "I saw a lot of the boy but not all of the boy."
Farrell asks him about how tall the boy was, and McQueary tells him he came up to Sandusky’s nipple.
[10:48 a.m. ET] McQueary is repeatedly asked by Roberto about whether he raised objections and concerns with her client about his handling of the matter. He concedes he did not.
Roberto says, "Did you EVER say to Mr. Curley subsequent to that telephone conversation, 'Look you need to do more!?"
Roberto ends her cross examination of McQueary, and defense attorney Ferrell begins his cross examination of McQueary for his client Gary Schultz.
[10:45 a.m. ET] Roberto goes into the reliability of McQueary’s memory:
Roberto: “During the meeting with Mr. Curley, did he take notes?”
McQueary say he also never memorialized what he saw in writing or recording until he met with the attorney general’s office.
So Roberto asks if his testimony at the grand jury proceeding was based on his recollection, and McQueary agrees that it was based on his memory of the event.
McQueary says he told Curley and Schultz that what he saw was "sexual in nature" and adds that he told them that Sandusky's arms were around the boy. He also says he told the two men about the slapping sounds, but concedes again he didn’t say anal intercourse.
[10:35 a.m. ET] Roberto is challenging McQueary on what he told Paterno: "
McQueary: “I have never used the word 'anal' or 'rape' since day one."...
Roberto: "And you have never used those words because you weren't sure?"
McQueary: "I'm sure of what I saw ... I didn't see penetration and I did hear protest .. but I do know what I saw."
Roberto: “Did you see parts of bodies touch?
McQueary: "Yes, they were as close as you can be, yes."
Roberto: “Were you that detailed in your description to Paterno?”
McQueary: "Ma'am you don't go to coach Paterno, in my mind you don't go to coach Paterno, and go into great detail about sexual acts, I would not have done that."
McQueary says he's used the word "foundling," but "I can not say I saw Mr. Sandusky's hands on the boy's genitals, no ma'am."
[10:30 a.m. ET] Roberto is asking whether McQueary explained the three separate looks into the shower to his father. McQueary says he doesn't know, but "I know I explained to my father what I saw, that's for sure."
Roberto dives into the into Dr. Jonathan Dranov aspect of McQueary’s story, the family friend who recently claimed McQueary never said anything about SEEING a sexual act.
McQueary says his father called Dranov because he was his boss and had great insight, and Dranov came over the evening the incident happened.
McQueary also says that he and his father did consider calling the police but did not.
Attorneys are now sparring over what Roberto can ask regarding Dranov, for purposes of corroboration (or not);
Roberto says, "If this man was there at his home that evening and was there to talk with him about the incident, I think it should be explored as an element of the offense."
Judge rules against defense, and Roberto moves on to McQueary’s call to Paterno.
[10:20 a.m. ET] Roberto focuses on the incident in the shower in 2002, and what McQueary saw and recalls:
She is takes him through the details of his entry to the locker room area the night of the incident and the layout of the locker room and showers.
He tells her he could tell there was more than one shower running, but that it wasn't terribly loud, and repeats he could hear slapping sounds.
Roberto: "Could you see the boy's face?”
McQueary: “At that time no.”
Roberto: “Did you ever see the boy's face?”
McQueary says he say he got a good look at the boy in the mirror.
The first time he looked at the mirror reflection he says he saw a quarter-profile or so of Sandusky and the boy.
At that point, he says he did nothing to get the attention of the two people.
"That first look through the mirror, I didn't know what to think. I was even sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing,” said McQueary.
Roberto's tone is contentious; Did you alert people?
McQueary says, "I did not alert them with my voice, but as I said before, I slammed the locker door shut."
Roberto: "At that point did you say anything to Mr. Sandusky?
McQueary: “No nothing.”
Roberto: “You didn't confront him at all about his behavior and what you saw?”
McQueary: “No ma'am."
Roberto: “What was the expression on Sandusky's face when he saw you?
McQueary: "Somewhat blank."
Roberto: "Did you EVER that night or subsequent to that night confront Mr. Sandusky about what you saw?”
McQueary: “No never once."
[10:11 a.m. ET] McQueary is asked about Paterno:
"Was he a mentor to you?”
“Without a doubt.”
Was he a role model to you?
“Without a doubt."
Roberto establishes that Curley's office was in a different building, and that he saw Curley only 4 or 5 times/year at bowl games, etc.
Going back to the night of the incident. McQueary is asked whether he recalls having dinner or drinks with anybody:
Did he eat out or in?
Roberto: "I'm trying to test his recollection, judge."
Roberto says, "It's a Friday night, did you have anything to drink?"
McQueary says, “No."
[10:08 a.m. ET] Cross examination of McQueary by defense attorney Roberto-
Roberto: How do you know it was 2002?
"I'm relatively sure it was 2002, I remember it being a Friday night before spring break," said McQueary.
He adds he saw no one else in the office building the night of the incident and there were no security cameras at the time, but he says he always thought cameras were subsequently put in place because of this incident. Roberto challenges him on whether he actually knows that's the case or that security was beefed up as a result of the incident. McQueary responds by saying he has no actual knowledge of it.
[10:05 a.m. ET] Four or five days after McQueary told Curley and Schultz about the incident, Curley called McQueary and said they had looked into it.
"He said they had contacted the Second Mile, he said that they told Jerry not to have any more of the kids around the facilities, and I think they told me they took his keys away but I'm not totally sure," said McQueary.
He adds, "I accepted what he had told me and said 'ok.'"
Mcqueary says he never saw Sandusky with kids around the facilities after that, but DID see Sandusky.
Beemer says, "What did you think about the fact that he was continued to be at the facility?" –
"I personally found it troubling and not right, " said McQueary.
McQueary says, "I would frequently informally raise my own questions about it," but not with Curley, Schultz, or Paterno.
But he says, "Coach Paterno did ask me in recent months after that if I was ok."
"There is no question in my mind that I conveyed I saw Gerry with a boy in the showers and that there were severe sexual acts going on and that it was wrong and over the line,” said McQueary.
Prosecutor Beemer wraps his direct examination of McQueary, and defense attorney Caroline Roberto begins her cross examination of McQueary.
[9:58 a.m. ET] From Twitter @sganim: [McQueary] "There was never a period of time after that incident where i saw jerry with any kids at all around our facility"
[9:55 a.m. ET] Prosecutor Beemer asks McQueary what the response was on part of Curley and Schultz when he told them about the incident.
McQueary says he can't recall who said what, but "they thought it was serious what I was saying and that they would investigate and look into it closely and they said they would follow up."
Beemer says, "No doubt ... believed to be a sexual act? No doubt."
Beemer: Why not talk to police?
Mcqueary: "I thought I was talking to the head of the police to be frank with you. In my mind it was like speaking to a DA, someone police reported to who would know what to do with it."
[9:48 a.m. ET] McQueary says Timothy Curley called him nine or ten days after his discussion with Paterno, and said he wanted to speak to McQueary along with Gary Schultz. McQueary says he knew that the Penn State police department reported to Schultz. He met with Curley and Schultz that afternoon or sometime the next day.
During the meeting Curley asked for details about the incident he'd told Paterno about. "What did you tell them?” “I told them that I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and that what I'd seen was extremely sexual and over the lines and it was wrong."
"Did you describe for them what you saw in the shower?”
Defense attorney Roberto interrupts him with frequent objections.
“Yes. I did I described for them the body positioning..."
McQueary says, "Yes I would have said that Jerry was in there in close proximity with a very young boy with his arms wrapped around him ... I would have said I heard slapping sounds. I DID say that."
"Would you have described for them what you believe the act was occurring in the shower?”
“Yes ... that I thought some kind of intercourse was going on."
But concedes he did not used the terms sodomy or anal intercourse.
[9:43 a.m. ET] McQueary says Paterno was shocked and saddened, slumped back in his chair.
McQueary says Paterno said, "I'm sorry you had to see that, that's terrible."
He adds Paterno told him he needed time to think about how to handle the situation.
[9:38 a.m. ET] McQueary and father decided after long discussion to call Joe Paterno. That decision was made around 10:30 p.m., and McQueary went home to sleep, then got up and called Paterno's home around 7:30 a.m. telling him he needed to see him. "I said coach I need to come to your house and talk about something." - "He said I don't have a job for you, if that’s what it's about don't bother coming over." (Some laughter in the courtroom at this.) "I said Coach it's something much more serious.'" He went to Paterno's home, told him he'd seen something sexual that was way over the line. "The rough positioning I would have described, but not in very much detail."
He says he made it clear to Paterno it was Sandusky, and that it involved a young boy.
He also says he made it clear the act he observed was sexual.
But, concedes he never used terms like sodomy or anal intercourse; "out of respect and not getting into detail with someone like coach Paterno, I would not have done it."
[9:34 a.m. ET] McQueary: During the third glance into the shower, "They had both turned so their bodies, they were both facing me and looking at me." - "I know they saw me.” “And how do you know that? “They looked directly in my eye, both of them." McQueary left the locker room. "How were you feeling at that point?” “Not very good ... can't describe ... shocked, horrified, and frankly not thinking straight, I was distraught."
McQueary called his father - "Someone I respected in my life, seeking advice." - said "I just saw coach Sandusky in the showers with a boy and what I saw was wrong and sexual and I need some advice quickly." Father asked if McQueary was ok, and told him to come over right away.
[9:31 a.m. ET] McQueary says he is sure it was a child he saw with Sandusky in the shower. After he slammed his locker he saw the two had separated.
[9:29 a.m. ET] McQueary: Is sure the individual he saw with Sandusky was a child. Says there was slow movement when he looked, but no longer the slapping sounds he heard when entering, and heard no other noise or sound other than the showers. Says his first two glances lasted for one or two seconds, and then he stepped back, "didn't want to see it anymore to be frank with you." Slammed his locker shut, "took a more brisk forward movement towards the shower and looked in again." At that time, they had separated.
McQueary has not hesitated once while giving this account - appears completely focused on the task.
[9:26 a.m. ET] McQueary :“I believe Jerry was sexually molesting him and having some type of intercourse with him … yes based on position, I did not see insertion nor protest, screaming or yelling.” He adds, “but that’s truly what I believe happened.”
[9:22 a.m. ET] CNN’s Laura Dolan reports:
McQueary says: I looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry with a boy in the shower. Jerry was behind the boy, the boy was up against the wall. I opened my locker, put the shoes in. I stepped to my right to look directly into the shower room.
The boy was up against the wall, facing the wall. Hands were shoulder height. Jerry was close to him with his hands wrapped around his waist.
I believe Jerry was sexually molesting him based on the positioning.
I did not see insertion. There was no protest or yelling. So I can’t be sure it was intercourse. But that’s what I believe was occurring.
[9:22 a.m. ET] @PCNN PCNN tweets:
McQueary- "as I turned as faced my locker I turned a...It was a 45 degree angle and I could see into the showers"
[9:16 a.m. ET] McQueary: "When I opened that first door I heard rhythmic slapping sounds, two or three slaps that you would hear skin on skin ... already alarmed and alerted and to be frank somewhat embarrassed." He also says he knew Sandusky - he was on the coaching staff when McQueary himself played, and he'd seen Sandusky since at campus.
[9:14 a.m. ET] McQueary is talking about the incident already... Describes watching a football movie that Friday night when he found Sandusky in the locker room with a child and becoming inspired to do football-related things so went to pick up tapes and sneakers.
[9:11 a.m. ET] Mike McQueary spells name... voice is steady, doesn't appear terribly nervous. Looks straight at the attorney, very focused.
[9:10 a.m. ET] The judge is on the bench. Mike McQueary is called to the stand and is being sworn in.
[9:09 a.m. ET] @lauradolancnn Laura Dolan tweets:
Rules being read now in court. Don't break the rules or we'll be kicked out. We can email and tweet.
[9:06 a.m. ET] In addition to defense attorneys Caroline Roberto and Thomas Farrell, there are five people sitting with the defense, behind the defense table.
[9:02 a.m. ET] Defendants Curley & Schultz and their attorneys are entering the courtroom now.
[9:00 a.m. ET] Lead prosecutor Bruce Beemer and additional staff are here. That makes 14 people in front of the bar on the State's side.
[8:57 a.m. ET] Sr. Dep. Attorney General Marc Costanzo tells reporters he expects five live witnesses and three grand jury testimonies read into the record at today’s hearing, and he expects the hearing won't take all day.
[8:35 a.m. ET] In Session reports: Sandusky defense attorney Karl Rominger tried to get into the courtroom for the hearing, but was told it's too crowded. Rominger said he was eager for the chance to assess testimony from Mike McQueary, who defense lawyers say isn’t telling the truth.