Attorney Joseph Amendola said one claim against Jerry Sandusky stemmed from a Sandusky family dispute, and he characterized the other as an example of people trying to mimic other allegations.
“That doesn’t surprise me because we believe there would be a number of copycat allegations, people who really maybe not even had direct contact with Jerry but ... try to jump on the bandwagon,” Amendola said.
He said the accusations, should they result in charges, would be vigorously contested.
“We’ll defend those if and when they become charges,” Amendola told the AP in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We’ll defend those just like we’re defending the other charges.”
Sandusky, 67, is charged with sexually abusing eight boys, some on campus. He has said he showered with some boys but never sexually abused them.
The Patriot-News newspaper of Harrisburg has reported that the pair of new claims were brought within the last two months.
Lawyers for two other people arrested earlier this month as a result of a grand jury investigation into allegations against Sandusky are asking prosecutors to turn over material to help them prepare for a preliminary hearing next month.
Attorneys for Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and former university Vice President Gary Schultz wrote to state prosecutors Tuesday asking for grand jury testimony and other information related to their cases. They both faces charges of perjury and failure to properly report suspected child abuse; they maintain their innocence.
The request appears to be a long shot, since such disclosures aren’t required so early in a case’s trajectory. But the letter also hints at a likely defense strategy: questioning the testimony of a graduate assistant who said he reported seeing Sandusky rape a child in 2002.
Among other things, they asked for corroboration of statements by Assistant Coach Mike McQueary that he told Schultz and Curley he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the football team showers nine years ago. They said such corroboration is needed to meet the relatively low legal standard required for the perjury charge to advance from the preliminary hearing to county court for a full trial.
“The presentment states no such corroboration,” wrote Caroline Roberto, who represents Curley, and Thomas J. Farrell, Schultz’s lawyer. “Please provide any in advance of the hearing or specify there is none, thereby saving the court and us considerable time and inconvenience.”
Roberto and Farrell acknowledged that Pennsylvania’s criminal procedure rules don’t require the disclosure they are seeking but told State Prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach she had the discretion to provide it. A spokesman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment on the letter Wednesday.
The lawyers have previously said their clients are innocent of the charges and vowed a vigorous defense.
The letter suggests a key element of that defense is likely to be a challenge to the testimony of McQueary, who a grand jury report said told the administrators during a meeting “that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having ... sex with a boy.”
Schultz and Curley said that McQueary was not that specific when he told them what he saw, according to the grand jury. The panel concluded that portions of the testimony by Schultz and Curley were not credible but that McQueary’s testimony was “extremely credible.”
Roberto and Farrell said in the three-page letter that they want an email from McQueary to Penn State players saying he stopped the alleged 2002 sexual attack on a child by Sandusky and a statement that he notified police.
McQueary, now on administrative leave from his coaching job, wrote in an email to friends that he had “discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police” about what he saw.
He did not specify whether he spoke to campus or State College police. State College borough Police Chief Tom King has said McQueary did not report to his department, and campus police have said they were unable to find a record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.