The Self-Professed Victim #2 testified under oath at the hearing 2 weeks ago that he was sexually abused by Jerry.
"Were you sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky?" the man was asked by Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Peterson, in what amounted to a very brief cross-examination.
"Yes," he responded.
Erroneous. This is flat out misreporting. Shocking. By the way, Hillary didn't win the election in a runaway.
From 2 people I know THAT WERE IN THE COURTROOM, here is how the questioning went.
Prosecution (to "Victim 2")--Were you sexually abused?
"Victim 2" --Yes.
Not, were you sexually abused by Sandusky. Just, "were you sexually abused?". I find the wording of the question kind of odd.
Some news outlets actually reported in somewhat correctly. This one came close:http://wnep.com/2016/11/04/victim-2-tak ... usky-case/
Victim 2 was called to testify for the defense but when questioned by prosecutors, he told the court he was sexually abused
This guy told investigators countless times that he was never abused by Sandusky. Not the night in question, and not ever. During this recent testimony, he even testified that he "must have made those statements" that he was never abused, but of course, couldn't remember. He drove 9 hours to attend Sandusky's mother's funeral. He had Sandusky stand in as his father at his senior night football game. He had Sandusky at his wedding. He wrote a letter to the editor of an area newspaper shortly after Sandusky's arrest, in DEFENSE of Sandusky. He was never abused. He changed his story to collect a payday, in an environment where no one was going to question him. It is obvious to anyone who knows anything about this case and has a functioning brain.