“It might be difficult to go through this right after lunch,” Joe Amendola quipped before concluding his cross examination of the Clinton County Child/Youth Services case manager who had worked with Victim 1.

He wasn’t kidding.

Amendola asked, “Did Victim 1 tell you or the state police officer that he engaged in oral sex or other sexual activity?”

The case manager answered, “no.”

The case manager then read from a report of her interview with Sandusky: “Mr. Sandusky and his attorney met on this day for an interview. The worker began the interview by asking Mr. Sandusky to tell her how he met [Victim 1] and how long he’s known him. Mr. Sandusky stated that he’s known [Victim 1] for about three years.

“Mr. Sandusky stated that he became wrapped up in [Victim 1] as he was an extended family member. He shared that he wanted to make [Victim 1] feel significant and important. Mr. Sandusky stated that at times his mom and grandmother would invite him to [Victim 1’s] sporting events.

He said he never received any feedback from [Victim 1] that indicated that he was uncomfortable. There was never any sexual acts in any form. He may have kissed [Victim 1] on the forehead and cheeks but never on the lips There may even be a possibility that he never kissed him on the forehead.”

In a surprise move, Mike McQueary — who wasn’t expected to testify for another couple days — was called to the stand. McQueary is known for witnessing the now-infamous Lasch shower incident, where he claims to have seen Sandusky abusing a young boy, referred to as Victim 2 in the Grand Jury report. This isn’t the first time McQueary has told his story in front of a judge — he was also a key witness at the Gary Schultz and Tim Curley preliminary hearing.

McQueary began by describing the incident, which occurred in 2001. He said he walked into the Lasch Football Building locker room one night in 2001 when he was a graduate assistant for the football team. He then heard, “skin on skin smacking sounds” coming from the coaches shower room.

“I see in the mirror Coach Sandusky standing behind a boy who is propped up against a wall in the shower. The boy’s hands are up on the wall and Coach Sandusky’s hands are on his mid-section…The glance would have only taken one or two seconds. I immediately turn back to my locker trying to digest what I just saw,” McQueary said.

“I then looked directly into the shower at that angle and saw what I just explained — Coach Sandusky’s arms wrapped around the boy’s midsection in the closest proximity that I think you could be in,” McQueary said. “I was extremely alarmed, extremely flustered, extremely shocked.”

McQueary then says he put his shoes in his locker and went back to the entrance of the shower. “The two individuals had separated, and both looked directly at me. We looked directly in each other’s eyes”

McQueary then went into the now-familiar story about how he called his father and then reported the news to Joe Paterno the following morning. When asked if McQueary ever interacted with Sandusky after the incident, he said, “When Jerry would come to the equipment room, I’d get up and leave real fast. People started to get suspicious to my reactions I think.”

Pictures of the shower room were then shown on the screen from the perspective that McQueary would have seen the alleged incident take place. The photos also included mannequins that represented Sandusky and Victim 2.

Karl Rominger from the defense was responsible for cross-examining McQueary, and he immediately tried to find inconsistencies in McQueary’s testimony. Rominger presented a written statement from McQueary which said he only looked into the shower two times, however, McQueary has testified that he actually looked in three times.

McQueary also said in his written statement — and to the Grand Jury — that the incident occurred in 2002, although he clarified by saying “I think it was 2002, but it may have been 2001.” However, the incident actually occurred in 2001, which Rominger tried to use to discredit McQueary.

Rominger also questioned the ambiguity of the actual sexual act that McQueary saw, “I did not see an actual penis — and again I don’t want to be respectful — but I did not see insertion…but again there’s no way that in that position, there’s no way his genitals were not touching the young boy’s rear end,” McQueary said.