Thursday, December 15 2011 1:43 PM EST2011-12-15 18:43:24 GMT
A Carlisle attorney who has joined the defense team of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky says his recent comments have been taken out of context.More >>
HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) -
A Carlisle attorney who has joined Jerry Sandusky's defense team says the former Penn State assistant football coach may have showered with young boys because the children lacked basic hygiene skills.
Sandusky is accused of molesting ten boys he met through The Second Mile charity he founded for troubled youth.
"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."
Rominger, who spoke with abc27 News Tuesday, added that his college cross country coach often showered with the team.
He said he does not disagree with Sandusky's decision to talk to the media. He does, however, believe he could have come across a little better.
"The problem is if you're an innocent person who's not articulate, you're not going to come across well, but you're still innocent," Rominger said. "A guilty person who is very articulate might come across innocent. So it's not a fair fight."
Rominger said the grand jury's presentment has some real credibility issues, starting with the testimony of assistant football coach Mike McQueary, who testified he saw Sandusky raping a young boy in a campus shower. McQueary's story has been called into question after reports that he told a family friend he did not actually see the abuse.
"They (the grand jury) said McQueary's highly credible," Rominger said. "We now know that's not true. And I guarantee you you're going to see other parts of that presentment that are not true."
Rominger said similarities in the accusers' stories are not problematic to the defense. In fact, they may point more toward innocence.
"That's what's unusual about this case," he said. "We don't see unique victimologies and that is a flag to somebody for false reports of collusion, because one child picks up on another one's story."