Jerry Sandusky Scandal

Kane says two more victims alleged abuse while Sandusky was under investigation

Pennsylvania State Attorney General Kathleen Kane, left, along with Special Deputy Attorney Genera H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr., right, release the results of a probe into the Jerry Sandusky child molestation investigation during a news conference Monday, June 23, 2014 in Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania State Attorney General Kathleen Kane, left, along with Special Deputy Attorney Genera H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr., right, release the results of a probe into the Jerry Sandusky child molestation investigation during a news conference Monday, June 23, 2014 in Harrisburg. AP photo

Two individuals alleged they were sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky in the fall of 2009 — after Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s predecessor took on the case against Sandusky, Kane said.

Kane revealed the allegations when answering a question Monday at a news conference she held for her review of how Gov. Tom Corbett handled the Sandusky investigation when he was attorney general.

Kane said the two came forward under the previous attorney general’s administration, and investigator H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr. said the allegations were made in 2011.

Sandusky has not been charged in relation to those allegations. He was convicted on charges that he sexually abused 10 young boys between 1998 and 2001.

Kane said the two individuals who made allegations in fall 2009 don’t want to pursue prosecution against Sandusky, who is already serving what amounts to a life sentence behind bars.

She would not provide other details about the alleged victims, to protect their privacy, she said.

Kane’s investigation dealt with why it took so long to charge Sandusky. It found no evidence that Corbett delayed the investigation for political purposes while running for governor, but did find “unfathomable” and “inexplicable” delays in the investigation.

A central point in the report is that prosecutors might have been able to bring charges sooner if they had taken steps such as serving a search warrant for Sandusky’s home in 2009.

When asked whether those two accusers would have been victimized if Sandusky had been charged in 2009, Kane said she didn’t know, but that there would have been greater public scrutiny on Sandusky earlier.

“If different steps had been taken ... they would have found corroborating evidence for Victim 1,” she said. “If that had happened, Sandusky would have been charged earlier.”

Kane implied that other victims have come forward to her administration, but that they allege abuse that occurred prior to 2009.

“Victims we found (who were) not found previously, because he is in jail, and the appeal (process) went well for the attorney general, they do not wish to prosecute at this time,” Kane said.

She did not indicate how many have come forward and declined comment on whether they are credible.

“I’m not going to doubt the credibility of sexual abuse victims,” Kane said. “Until found by a jury to be uncredible, when they tell us they are the victims of sexual abuse (they are).”

Jennifer Storm, the state’s victim advocate, praised Kane for not revealing additional information about the alleged victims.

“She did the best she could to protect the individuals she exposed today,” Storm said after the news conference. “That’s what we want to see in dealing with sexual abuse victims.”

  Comments