CBS News/ November 14, 2011, 12:01 PM

Sandusky was "creepy," says ex-foundation kid

The sex abuse scandal enveloping Penn State University revolves around former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, who was a top lieutenant of legendary - now fired head football coach Joe Paterno.

Prosecutors charge Sandusky repeatedly abused young boys, dating back 15 years, notes CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian, and that Sandusky used a charity he founded for troubled kids in 1977, The Second Mile, as bait.

Troy Craig, now 33, was 10 when he took part in Second Mile programs.

Alleged Sandusky victims preparing civil suits
Complete coverage: The Penn State Scandal

Craig told Angie Koehle of CBS affiliate WTAJ in Altoona, Pa. he was never abused by Sandusky, but Sandusky's actions were "creepy."

"He would put his hand on my thigh," Craig says, "and he would just keep it there. Sometimes there would be a squeeze, but he would just keep it there, and it made me uncomfortable."

There were, says Koehle, trips to Penn State games, standing on the sidelines, and picnics with Sandusky's family.

Craig says he remembers "being in the team locker room and thinking that was neat."

Craig's experiences, says Koehle, are strikingly similar to those of the boys Sandusky is accused of abusing.

In a 23-page grand jury report, alleged victims testified Sandusky took them to games, picnics and, like Craig, put his hand on their legs.

"I knew when I was little that it was creepy and different, and I stand by that now," Craig says. "I experienced nothing criminal or witnessed nothing criminal that he did."

Craig says it's possible the behavior could have eventually escalated.

By speaking out, he says, he hopes that, if there are more than just the 8 reported victims, they'll hear him and come forward also.

"If somebody out there is wrestling with the idea of coming out and testifying maybe seeing me would compel them to do it," says Craig.

41 Comments Add a Comment

: linkicon reporticon emailicon
FalseAccusations says:: "Creepy"...word of the decade for false-awareness predator panic junkies used to describe primarily males for which there is Z E R O physical/material evidence to support false accuser allegations. Also used as an adjective to describe any U.S. Citizen exercising Free Speech by expressing an opinion or position contrary to said false-awareness predator panic junkies. That's right...for the record accusers are presumed FALSE until the satisfy the burden of proof by PROVING they aren't lying. Would that be "creepy" as in "How To Deal With Creepy People"? This guy is likely a vigilante networked FAKE who was in waiting to be played like a card in this exaggerrated mess. Using redundant/rhetorical terminology coupled with an all to familiar "reach out" tactic meant to encourage anyone who had any physical contact whatsoever to come forward and simply agree with statements already prepared by the prosecutors.; reply

: linkicon reporticon emailicon
a_progressive_guy says:: There is something even more disturbing that has not been explored yet in this case. How does Joe Paterno (Mr. Integrity) go from having such a high moral conscience, i.e., Do the Right Thing, etc. to protecting the Penn State name & football program by squashing the report of criminal activity in his locker room. I believe the real answer is that Joe Pa didnt believe that what he knew about the incident was not all that bad. He may even have though that the boy tricked JS into to doing it.

I know that sounds harsh, but consider this logic. Most things in life can be understood based on extreme positions, and then figuring out the threshold/boundary points. First of all, we have to assume that since McQueary (MM) played at PennState & was a grad assist & was 28 year old, that Joe knew him quite well & would think that he was trustworthy & certainly would not think that he & his father would come to him with such a bogus, explosive & disgusting story. So let's look at extreme. If MM told JoePa that he witnessed JS murdering someone, in the locker room, I'm sure JoePa would have told him to call the police, he might have also called the police himself & he probably also would have called Curly & Schultz. If MM told JoePa that he saw JS in the locker room fighting with someone, JoePa probably would not have called the police (even though assault & battery charges could be warranted). Again, he probably would have also called Curly & Schultz. Would about drug use ? What about if MM told JoePa that he saw JS using university computers to embezzle money from the Second Mile Program?
Therefore, the question is what is the threshold/boundary of activity, after which JoePa absolutly would have been compelled to call the cops and/or make sure that he did eveything in his power to stop future occurrances? Thus, if we believe JoePa, that MM only told him that there was some touching/horseplay/inappropriate activity (but did not say that s*x was happening) then we have to conclude that JoePa doesnt think that that activity is so bad, b/c he did nothing to make sure that JS could not continue the same activity with other boys from the Second Mile Program.
Especially since JoePa knew that PennState was a sponsor of Second Mile & thus that if something went wrong with them, PSU could be blamed. If for only purposes of self-preservation, JoePa would have done something, if he truly believed that what JS was doing was all that bad and really criminal.

Now on the other hand, I believe that Curly & Schultz were more likely concerened with the PennState image and whitewashed the investigation/did not report to the poilice, in order to save the fotball program. Their job is to maintain the image of the PSU sports conglomerate.Schultz absolutly knew about the 1998 incident & since the campus police reported to him, you have to assume that he had some training in crime and had to know that at least based on the two incidents that JS was likely a pedofile.
I think JoePa just didnt think that what he knew about the incident was all that bad, which is very sad and is why his firing was richy deserved. If anything, he was acting like the Catholic bishops that continued to allow preists to other parish. They believed that the victims of teh abuse would get over it, (and they-the Bishops- had forgiven them) but that the activity did not rise to a jailable offense, nor was it bad enough to de-frock them.; reply

linkicon reporticon emailicon

Mahatma89 says:

One part of the Grand Jury Report that is very sketchy is McQueary's report of the alleged rape. McQueary opened the door of the locker room and was surprised that lights were on and showers were running. He also heard rhythmic slapping sounds that he thought were the sounds of sexual activity. I am not sure what sex in a men's locker room sounds like but I can imagine that if I heard rhythmic slapping sounds in a men's locker room at a university, I would not think it was sexual activity. In any event, he heard these rhythmic slapping sounds over the sound of running showers as soon as he opened the door to what is probably a fairly good sized locker room, so we can assume the noise being generated from the alleged sexual activity was fairly loud. He then went to put away his new athletic shoes and looks into the shower area and sees a ten year old boy, victim 2, with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal sex and Sandusky and Victim 2 see him. This part is not clear. If Victim 2's hands are up against the wall, it seems like he is standing up facing the wall. If he is being subjected to anal sex, then Sandusky is also facing the wall. The way most locker rooms are configured, multiple rows of lockers open on to the shower area. The wall would have to be the wall one faces as one walks into the shower area from a row of lockers. If Victim 2 and Sandusky were facing the wall and showers were running loud enough to be heard as soon as the locker room door was opened and they were in the midst of the shower noise and generating enough noise from the sexual activity that it could be heard as soon as the door was opened, then it can only be imagined that Victim 2 and Sandusky did not hear McQueary enter the locker room to be alerted to his presence, yet they could not have seen him unless they had paused from the sexual activity to turn around from facing the wall and look towards the rows of lockers, and McQueary definitely indicates both saw him but does not indicate they paused and turned around to do so. It is also unclear how a six foot four inch man and a ten year old boy who is probably less than five feet tall could be at the right heights to engage in this activity from a standing position. Victim 2 would have had to have been standing on a chair or Sandusky would have had to have been on his knees yet this is not indicated. It is also astounding to learn that tickling on the stomach, placing a hand on the knee and men and boys showering in a men's locker room are all now considered to be akin to sexual activity. We should understand that from Paterno's and Sandusky's perpective, men and boys showering nude in a men's locker room is not strange at all and no one would have given it a second thought just a few years ago. When both of these men were the ages of the victims, most YMCA's did not allow men or boys to wear swimsuits in the swimming pools and this continued at some till the 1970's. It was no different at many pools at universities that had separate men's and women's gyms, or for swimming in boy's PE classes, so men and boys showering in locker room showers might not have the same implications to someone of Sandusky or Paterno's generation as to people of more recent generations.


deschl replies:: linkicon reporticon emailicon; ever heard of turning your head from left to right


RogerInHawaii replies:: linkicon reporticon emailicon; You say, "YMCA's did not allow men or boys to wear swimsuits in the swimming pools and this continued at some till the 1970's".

That's absolutely FALSE.

See all 5 Replies

: linkicon reporticon emailicon
hamiltongrad says:: what can we learn from this as parents ?; reply

: linkicon reporticon emailicon
Firefighter40 says:: I'm not about to have my attention diverted by those who want to blame children for monsters!Parents do have a tremendous responsibiltiy for ensureing the well being and safety of their children,no argument there.I do not believe for a moment that you can make that connection here for Sandusky' actions and the cover up by Pennslvania officials!Stick to the issue!; reply

: linkicon reporticon emailicon
Firefighter40 says:: I'm reminded of Coach Paterno chasing an official down the field after a football game(Ohio State?) because of an atrocious call.I know football coaches get all over players for making mistakes but JoePa would have you believe that those mistakes are worth challenging but not the rape and sodomy of children.(The movie referenced previously should have read Jaw's); reply

: linkicon reporticon emailicon
Firefighter40 says:: This violation ,the acts and the cover-up don't whisper of worse things to come they scream of worse things to come.The devil here is in the details!Sandusky should have been arrested on Halloween night ,fitting for the monster he is!I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Jawa,where the town official says"If we put that sign up all the winter inhabitant will be on welfare for the winter"I hope for a Federal grand jury.(He took children across state lines for immoral purposes and the school approved.; reply

linkicon reporticon emailicon

Firefighter40 says:

The grand jury testimony is available on line .READ IT!Sandusky is a pedophile.that he was able to continue his perverse behavior so openly will be his defense.That others Paterno et al were aware, only makes this heinous crime worse.When a child is being victimized by an adult (or anyone)he/she looks to other s to rescue them.That a male adult(McQuirie) witnessed("both Sandusky and the boy saw me")and did nothing speaks to the loss of humanity his and ours.There is no believable acceptable excuse for that behavior.It would not have been heroic to rescue the boy, it only would have been human!These crimes require a Federal Grand Jury.


tomanyt replies:: linkicon reporticon emailicon; Grad jury testimony means nothing. A grand jury and indict a piece of toast.


blindersoff replies:: linkicon reporticon emailicon; tomanyt, the assistant coach who was then graduate assistant McQuarry actually says he witnessed the shower rape. Was he lying then or is he lying now? Not shocked certain people want to cover for a known little boy rapist.

linkicon reporticon emailicon

joelschl says:

I have not heard anyone discussing the parent(s) role in all of this. Were the parents so mesmerized by this mans 'fame' that they ignored the giant red flags (overnights alone with Sandusky)? I have read that some of the boys slept over at this monsters home. Why would ANY parent every allow that? Why would a parent allow their child to go on over nights with him unsupervised. No one has put any blame on the parents here. Mind you.. Sandusky is a monster if he did these things... but it still does not excuse the parents of the children for allowing him such unfettered access to the children. Here is the rule of thumb.. NEEVER LET YOUR CHILD go alone anywhere with an adult other than the parents ... in a one on one situation.. NEVER.


tomanyt replies:: linkicon reporticon emailicon; "I have read that some of the boys slept over at this monsters home. Why would ANY parent every allow that?" Your parents never let you to go to a sleep over? How sad for you.