PDA

View Full Version : Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

wfgodot
02-10-2012, 06:01 PM
Please continue discussion here on the Penn State/Sandusky/Second Mile case.

Links of interest:

Thread #1

Thread #2

Thread #3

Thread #4

Thread #5

Thread #6

Thread #7


If you have important links of interest from the other threads, please post them soon as it saves others much time having to click back and find them!

pinktoes
02-10-2012, 06:43 PM
JJ: This probably doesn't matter, but just to add to your bank of historical knowledge about Gricar, here you go:

You said, "As far as I know, Patty Fornicola (PEF) has no relatives in Ohio...."

Might not be any longer. But in 2002, one of Gino's daughters was living in Ohio (married name):

"Cristina Brandt of Westerville, Ohio...."

From Gino's obit, at:
http://www.obitcentral.com/obitsearch/obits/pa/pa-centre1.htm

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 06:44 PM
From Pinktoes:

JJ: here's the first MSM reference to other victims not fitting the profile, etc. It's in a list, I presume taken from that pdf of Amendola's requests for addnl info to fill in the gaps of what prosecutors gave him in response to his first discovery request. Don't have time now to go to the pdf; maybe someone does.

Amendola's request doesn't have anything to do with other cases Gricar looked at. He is asking what other reports the grand jury looked at.

Reader
02-10-2012, 06:46 PM
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7


I'm not sure it the "boys" psychological file.

-------

What do you mean?

Reader
02-10-2012, 06:53 PM
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7


(snip) A lot of the others, you have a victim, but no corroboration. The only ones where there is some semblance of both are 2007 and 1998. 1998 is not serious as many of the others; no rape is claimed.
------

What about the victim who claimed to be raped numerous times in the horror house basement and screamed for help but dear Dottie just couldn't hear him?

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 06:56 PM
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7590037&postcount=579)


I'm not sure it the "boys" psychological file.

-------

What do you mean?

It might have been Sandusky's.

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 06:58 PM
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #7 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7590195&postcount=586)


(snip) A lot of the others, you have a victim, but no corroboration. The only ones where there is some semblance of both are 2007 and 1998. 1998 is not serious as many of the others; no rape is claimed.
------

What about the victim who claimed to be raped numerous times in the horror house basement and screamed for help but dear Dottie just couldn't hear him?

1. I don't think a wife can be compelled to testify against a husband.

2. She may testify that she never heard anything.

Reader
02-10-2012, 07:05 PM
1. I don't think a wife can be compelled to testify against a husband.

2. She may testify that she never heard anything.

I see what you meant now but think the victim's testimony will be very compelling.

Part of what the prosecutors and expert witnesses will explain is that these types of crimes are not done in front of onlookers but the predator makes all efforts to keep them in the dark. Just because there is not a direct witness does not mean it didn't happen.

Reader
02-10-2012, 07:07 PM
It might have been Sandusky's.


No, there are requests for psychological and counseling records on some of the victims in this link, and one section that asks for all expert testimony:

http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

Reader
02-10-2012, 07:10 PM
I found this section to be interesting:

Defense counsel requests copies of all law enforcement
agency reports regarding the Defendant completed by any federal, state, county, sheriff
and/or local agency from within and outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
Defendant is asking the Court to enter an Order directing the Commonwealth to provide
Defendant's counsel with full, complete, and non-redacted copies of these materials
pursuant to his request contained in Defendant's First Request for Pre-Trial Discovery
material along with all supplemental reports and attachments related thereto.
pp.


http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

Filly
02-10-2012, 07:10 PM
Just popping in to share and say thank you to all that care about the victims here.

While making supper I hear my elderly mom go to the air I guess "well ***** anybody can see this guy got a screw loose. There's something wrong with this guy". I go to see who it is and of course it's Sandusky.

She then asks me who the lady in the purple scarf is and I explain and she goes "She's worse than him. She should be held responsible". I'm no lawyer so I couldn't explain.

Prayers for the still suffering victims.

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 07:16 PM
First, the prosecution might be okay on spousal privilege: http://pennacrimlaw.com/spousal-privilege-in-pennsylvania-when-your-spouse-doesnt-have-to-testify/

No, there are requests for psychological and counseling records on some of the victims in this link, and one section that asks for all expert testimony:

http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

The request, in regard to the 1998 incident, says:

There was further reporting prepared on this incident that a
psychological evaluation was conducted and a report prepared by John P. Seasock, a psychologist, of an unknown individual.

Victim 6, B. K., Sandusky? They had six week before RFG's decision. Again, I'm not sure if it was the victim.

Reader
02-10-2012, 07:28 PM
In this 12/29 letter to the AG's office why does Amendola refer to the defendant JS as 'her' and 'herself'?

(the yardbird link)

In Re: Commonwealth vs. Gerald Sandusky
Defendant's First Request for Pre-Trial Discovery
Dear Joe and Jonelle:

This office represents the named. Defendant in the above-captioned
criminal action, and, on her behalf, and pursuant to Rule 573(b)(1) of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,
83 S. Ct_ 1194, 10L, Ed. 2d 215 (1963), hereby requests disclosure of the
following items and information material to our client's case:


Any and all scientific reports, the results of the analysis or
examinations conducted on any specimens or objects or upon the
Defendant herself regardless of the location of the specimens examined or
the process by which they were obtained for analysis, including but not
limited to the following:

Copies of all medical/psychological records/examinations and all
other materials related to the accusers, which the Commonwealth has
referred to as Victim Nos. 1 through 10 inclusive, which were conducted
pursuant to the investigation and/ or allegations related to the charges filed
against the Defendant in this matter;


A list and diagram of the location or locations of each object
or specimen of physical evidence recovered or found and from
whom it was taken or received before being taken into custody by
any Commonwealth agent, police officer, any agent of the police or
any other investigator and which was submitted for examination;
specifically the precise location where latent fingerprints, cartridge
cases, spent bullets and/ or impressions trajectories thereof were
found;


Her/herself; psych/medical records of all victims 1-10; cartridge cases; bullets??

Reader
02-10-2012, 07:34 PM
First, the prosecution might be okay on spousal privilege: http://pennacrimlaw.com/spousal-privilege-in-pennsylvania-when-your-spouse-doesnt-have-to-testify/



The request, in regard to the 1998 incident, says:

There was further reporting prepared on this incident that a
psychological evaluation was conducted and a report prepared by John P. Seasock, a psychologist, of an unknown individual.

Victim 6, B. K., Sandusky? They had six week before RFG's decision. Again, I'm not sure if it was the victim.

Right, from your link on privilege:

(4) in any criminal proceeding in which one of the charges pending against the defendant includes murder, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse or rape.

We had discussed this exception before in a former thread.

For the psych/medical records request, see my next post.

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 08:05 PM
In this 12/29 letter to the AG's office why does Amendola refer to the defendant JS as 'her' and 'herself'?


Her/herself; psych/medical records of all victims 1-10; cartridge cases; bullets??

Knowing a little bit about how Amendola's office is run, I think it was a typo. He first blamed his secretary for this fiasco:

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-21396-a-new-challenge-for-the-media-unpublishing.html

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4284031

He is a very good lawyer. ;)

I'd suspect the others are boiler plate language. It is included generally to cover everything.

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 08:34 PM
JJ: This probably doesn't matter, but just to add to your bank of historical knowledge about Gricar, here you go:

You said, "As far as I know, Patty Fornicola (PEF) has no relatives in Ohio...."

Might not be any longer. But in 2002, one of Gino's daughters was living in Ohio (married name):

"Cristina Brandt of Westerville, Ohio...."

From Gino's obit, at:
http://www.obitcentral.com/obitsearch/obits/pa/pa-centre1.htm

That is about as close to Cleveland as Pittsburgh is. That is a cousin. Gino lived in Toledo, but that was before Patty was born.

pinktoes
02-10-2012, 08:51 PM
That is about as close to Cleveland as Pittsburgh is. That is a cousin. Gino lived in Toledo, but that was before Patty was born.

Like I said, it might be of no import. I just appreciate your being a stickler for the facts. And thought you'd want to know that Patty F did, in fact, have a relative living in Ohio. Could matter to you someday to know that; or not. Doesn't matter to me, but it could matter someday. Who knows?

pinktoes
02-10-2012, 09:09 PM
Is this the psychological we're trying to figure out? The one in Amendola's Motion to Compel that refers to the 1998 incident and says, "...There was further reporting prepared on this incident that a psychological evaluation was conducted and a report prepared by John P. Seasock, a psychologist, of an unknown individual. The Attorney General's response to Defendant's discovery request failed to provide this psychological evaluation report prepared by Dr. Seasock and to identify the patient...."

Could be anybody involved in the incident. Just seems commonsensical that if it were Sandusky, he'd know that and that Amendola wouldn't particularly want further documentation on it.

link to the full pdf:
http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/Sandusky_discovery_motion_2-6-12.pdf

BTW, Seasock specializes in sex abuse victims and does a lot of forensic psychology. I've seen his name about at professional conferences here and there, as well as in court cases in PA. Never met him; know nothing about his reputation.

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 09:27 PM
Like I said, it might be of no import. I just appreciate your being a stickler for the facts. And thought you'd want to know that Patty F did, in fact, have a relative living in Ohio. Could matter to you someday to know that; or not. Doesn't matter to me, but it could matter someday. Who knows?

You are casting too wide a net. The cousin doesn't live near where Wiley disappeared (Hinckley Township) and might not have been living there in 1985, when Wiley disappeared.

The cousin happens to be living within about 10 miles of one of RFG's nephews. Is that significant? No.

We also saw, over the past summer, the "Utah Mystery Man" that bore a facial resemblance to RFG. His eyes were a different color and he was two inches taller. For days, we had to go through that.

Can we just be a bit conservative in trying to find links between these things? It adds to the value of the board. :)

pinktoes
02-10-2012, 09:33 PM
Good old Joe. JJ: Did Joe tell you that the addition of those newspapers to his client's expungement orders were his secretary's fault? If so, that doesn't even make sense in the context of the other quote in the link you provided. He said that expunging a criminal record should extend to the media. So, he slipped those newspaper names into the expungement orders, figuring (correctly) that the judges wouldn't read them very closely.

That was corrected by the judges. (And so was Joe) He tried to pull a fast one. From your link:

"Attorney Joe Amendola, who represents the defendants, had added the two newspapers to the standard expungement orders he prepared for the judges’ signatures. The judges apparently signed without reading.

Amendola explained the background to the unorthodox addition to the standard expungement order. He said that an earlier client was having trouble finding employment despite having her criminal record expunged. Prospective employers Googled her name and found a 1992 Collegian article detailing her crime.

“What’s the sense in having your record expunged if anyone can Google you and it comes up,” he said."

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-21396-a-new-challenge-for-the-media-unpublishing.html
________________

BTW, it has been posted here hasn't it that Amendola was the defense attorney for another child sex offender in that area? The one I know of is Christopher G. Lee, of Boalsburg Mansion in Boalsburg. Amendola represented him. Mike Madeira, within his legal discretion as DA, gave Lee an ARD and Lee was allowed to have his criminal record expunged. (Amendola has experience in expunging things.). But, there's still a trace of it on the vile, hard-to-expunge-unless-you-can-slip-it-by-the-judge Internet. Like here:

"...Christopher G. Lee, a Harris Township supervisor and Boal Mansion CEO, was represented by Amendola after he was charged with three counts of indecent assault on 8-and 10- year-old boys. Lee entered an accelerated rehabilitative disposition program in which he did not enter either a guilty or not-guilty plea...."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/16/130460/sanduskys-lawyer-amendola-is-now.html#storylink=cpy

There are photos around of Paterno with Lee, too. Another child predator who runs with the monied crowd in State College.

pinktoes
02-10-2012, 09:38 PM
You are casting too wide a net. The cousin doesn't live near where Wiley disappeared (Hinckley Township) and might not have been living there in 1985, when Wiley disappeared.

The cousin happens to be living within about 10 miles of one of RFG's nephews. Is that significant? No.

We also saw, over the past summer, the "Utah Mystery Man" that bore a facial resemblance to RFG. His eyes were a different color and he was two inches taller. For days, we had to go through that.

Can we just be a bit conservative in trying to find links between these things? It adds to the value of the board. :)

We can. I just don't want to miss anything. And thought you might appreciate the info since you took the time to tell me I was wrong about Patty having relatives in Ohio. Had you not said that, I wouldn't have bothered to correct that info. I just want to make sure when we're stating facts, we've got 'em straight. If they're out of range for readers, then readers should ignore me. Otherwise, if I know or feel like checking the facts, or correcting them, then that's how I roll.

Now, I'll try to stay more on the straight and narrow. But no blinders on. This case is still in the fact-gathering phase.

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 09:47 PM
Is this the psychological we're trying to figure out? The one in Amendola's Motion to Compel that refers to the 1998 incident and says, "...There was further reporting prepared on this incident that a psychological evaluation was conducted and a report prepared by John P. Seasock, a psychologist, of an unknown individual. The Attorney General's response to Defendant's discovery request failed to provide this psychological evaluation report prepared by Dr. Seasock and to identify the patient...."

Could be anybody involved in the incident. Just seems commonsensical that if it were Sandusky, he'd know that and that Amendola wouldn't particularly want further documentation on it.


He may want the report because it is exculpatory. Sandusky might have never seen it. If there was a report saying Sandusky is perfectly normal, that could explain why RFG didn't prosecute. That is a bit unlikely, but it is possible.

Conversely, it might be negative, and Amendola wants to figure out how to defend against it. While no in anything criminal, I've had some opinions/letters used in that context.



BTW, Seasock specializes in sex abuse victims and does a lot of forensic psychology. I've seen his name about at professional conferences here and there, as well as in court cases in PA. Never met him; know nothing about his reputation.

He still could be looking at an alleged perpetrator.

J. J. in Phila
02-10-2012, 10:35 PM
We can. I just don't want to miss anything. And thought you might appreciate the info since you took the time to tell me I was wrong about Patty having relatives in Ohio. Had you not said that, I wouldn't have bothered to correct that info. I just want to make sure when we're stating facts, we've got 'em straight. If they're out of range for readers, then readers should ignore me. Otherwise, if I know or feel like checking the facts, or correcting them, then that's how I roll.

Now, I'll try to stay more on the straight and narrow. But no blinders on. This case is still in the fact-gathering phase.

Well, the same obituary showed that PEF had a cousin in Texas, and there was a sighting of RFG in TX in 8/05. It has been ruled out, but there is even a photo; FBI photo analysis said it wasn't him. PEF thought it could have been him. I still have people saying it is him. Is that connected? Probably not.

Now there are some things that are more strongly coincidental, but those things point to walkaway. They certainly are not proof that RFG walked away. If he did, is it somehow related to Sandusky. Maybe, but maybe not.

A few months ago, someone did that (and it wasn't me). Laid it out. I noted a few other points that the new poster didn't realize was out that strengthened it. It isn't proof. It is consistent with the theory that RFG walked away, but it is not proof.

StellarsJay
02-11-2012, 12:48 AM
I went looking for today's photo of Dorothy Sandusky. She looks as thought th epast few months have been hard.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/photos-friday-images-as-bellefonte-hosts-sandusky-hearing-1001788/
The most interesting photo is number 8, with Amendona and Jerry.

katydid23
02-11-2012, 12:51 AM
Did anyone hear Sandusky WHINING today because he is not allowed to visit with his grandchildren. OH WELL...I guess that's what happens when you rape little boys. Too bad.

J. J. in Phila
02-11-2012, 01:29 AM
Did anyone hear Sandusky WHINING today because he is not allowed to visit with his grandchildren. OH WELL...I guess that's what happens when you rape little boys. Too bad.

Did you hear him complaining about his neighbors?

If it was me, and I was innocent, I'd make sure I was no where near children unsupervised.

passionflower
02-11-2012, 10:41 AM
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-02-10/watch-dottie-sandusky-run-over-reporter-jerry-sandusky?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D134766
all over national news and AOL, not just a local story.........
anyone see LAWSUIT coming???? on Dottie?

pinktoes
02-11-2012, 10:51 AM
JJ: When I said, "This case is still in the fact-gathering phase." I was referring the the Jerry Sandusky case, and all other matters that might eventually intersect with it. Gricar's disappearance might. That's where my own interest lies. I'm open to the idea that Gricar was murdered, and that it intersects with the entire scope of people who might be involved with Sandusky's activities, The Second Mile, the PSU mishandling and/or coverup of his/others' crimes.

I'm aware of your odds on what happened to Gricar, so you don't have to remind me. I understand the entire rationale. And am working on it.

J. J. in Phila
02-11-2012, 02:04 PM
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-02-10/watch-dottie-sandusky-run-over-reporter-jerry-sandusky?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D134766
all over national news and AOL, not just a local story.........
anyone see LAWSUIT coming???? on Dottie?

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, at least once. Maybe she didn't see him.

InTheGarden
02-11-2012, 03:36 PM
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, at least once. Maybe she didn't see him.

Did you watch the video? I'm surprised she didn't crash into her garage door. The reporter didn't even know it was Dottie until they made eye contact.

Dottie is angry!

J. J. in Phila
02-11-2012, 05:11 PM
Did you watch the video? I'm surprised she didn't crash into her garage door. The reporter didn't even know it was Dottie until they made eye contact.

Dottie is angry!


Yes, and an angry driver can make a mistake.

HMSHood
02-11-2012, 05:34 PM
Did anyone hear Sandusky WHINING today because he is not allowed to visit with his grandchildren. OH WELL...I guess that's what happens when you rape little boys. Too bad.

Jerry Sandusky needs the Whambulance! Someone call the Whambulance!

http://64.58.6.86:7701/whambulance.com_files/Whambulance.jpg

Reader
02-11-2012, 06:00 PM
I went looking for today's photo of Dorothy Sandusky. She looks as thought th epast few months have been hard.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/photos-friday-images-as-bellefonte-hosts-sandusky-hearing-1001788/
The most interesting photo is number 8, with Amendona and Jerry.

I imagine these past few months have been rather hard on DS...her whole world has fallen apart, her husband is accused of some of the worse, scandalous crimes that exist and now she is stuck in the house with him 24/7...it seems to be driving both of them a little looney...his rambling, pity me speech, her trying to run down a reporter (in the link provided the reporter says DS gunned the car when she saw her and the photographer).....

I'd almost feel sorry for her if she wasn't an enabler and hadn't called the victims liars.

It concerns me that JS so adamantly wants his grandchildren to come visit him...that house doesn't seem to be a healthy environment right now.

Hoping the judge doesn't give in to JS's demands for the visits and travel. The last thing they need to do is start catering to him and letting him feel like he still has some power over the situation and victims he has created.

Reader
02-11-2012, 06:02 PM
Jerry Sandusky needs the Whambulance! Someone call the Whambulance!

http://64.58.6.86:7701/whambulance.com_files/Whambulance.jpg


Love it and need it today!

StellarsJay
02-11-2012, 06:26 PM
Good article, good comments
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/11/3086343/a-scandalous-theory-worth-investigating.html
people on this forum have discussed this before, but htis is a good summary of the real estate spiderweb.

J. J. in Phila
02-11-2012, 07:05 PM
We have:

1. A pillar of the community using a charity to allegedly lure young boys for rape.

2. A questionable real estate deal involving people in charge of PSU and who knew about some of the activities of #1.

3. A district attorney who also knew about the activities of #1, and vanished without a trace.

CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA GOTHIC

azwriter
02-11-2012, 10:29 PM
I imagine these past few months have been rather hard on DS...her whole world has fallen apart, her husband is accused of some of the worse, scandalous crimes that exist and now she is stuck in the house with him 24/7...it seems to be driving both of them a little looney...his rambling, pity me speech, her trying to run down a reporter (in the link provided the reporter says DS gunned the car when she saw her and the photographer).....

I'd almost feel sorry for her if she wasn't an enabler and hadn't called the victims liars.

It concerns me that JS so adamantly wants his grandchildren to come visit him...that house doesn't seem to be a healthy environment right now.

Hoping the judge doesn't give in to JS's demands for the visits and travel. The last thing they need to do is start catering to him and letting him feel like he still has some power over the situation and victims he has created.

I hope the Judge and all officals involved in this decision keep in mind what we all have witnessed with Josh Powell and his deeds of death to his own boys. Let's not even chance having the same thing happen in Penna. Just My O.

StellarsJay
02-12-2012, 12:50 AM
Kathleen Kane election story
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Patrick-Murphy-vs-Kathleen-Kane-Debate-139156619.html

Rlaub44
02-12-2012, 12:00 PM
A good article about calls to revise PA's outdated child abuse laws:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/are_pennsylvanias_child-abuse.html

ThoughtFox
02-12-2012, 12:27 PM
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, at least once. Maybe she didn't see him.

Remember, there was a reporter AND a cameraman - two people. And you can hear the engine - she didn't slow down at all.

katydid23
02-12-2012, 12:31 PM
I imagine these past few months have been rather hard on DS...her whole world has fallen apart, her husband is accused of some of the worse, scandalous crimes that exist and now she is stuck in the house with him 24/7...it seems to be driving both of them a little looney...his rambling, pity me speech, her trying to run down a reporter (in the link provided the reporter says DS gunned the car when she saw her and the photographer).....

I'd almost feel sorry for her if she wasn't an enabler and hadn't called the victims liars.

It concerns me that JS so adamantly wants his grandchildren to come visit him...that house doesn't seem to be a healthy environment right now.

Hoping the judge doesn't give in to JS's demands for the visits and travel. The last thing they need to do is start catering to him and letting him feel like he still has some power over the situation and victims he has created.

I totally agree. And given the tragic situation with the Powell brothers, I would hope the courts would protect his grandchildren from him by keeping them far away from his home.

Steely Dan
02-12-2012, 12:39 PM
A good article about calls to revise PA's outdated child abuse laws:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/are_pennsylvanias_child-abuse.html

What a backassward state that is! :banghead:

Reader
02-12-2012, 05:43 PM
Jerry Sandusky hearing in Centre County - Twitter timeline

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/jerry_sandusky_hearing_in_cent_1.html#incart_hbx

Sara Ganim's Twitter excerpts:

Three of #Sandusky grand kids were recommended for psych evaluations bc of contact with him, prosecutor says

prosecutor: 1 in 3 people in Centre County have direct affiliation with PSU, so #Sandusky jury should come from elsewhere

#sandusky smiles wide as prosecutor says: "defendant used his role in the second mile to vicitimize, locate and target victims."

"Sandusky laughs nervously as he says he doesn't understand the judges question about picking juries

#Sandusky laughing as judge asks if he is on meds (yes) that affect his ability to think clearly (no)

Shakespeare:

O villain, villain, smiling, damnčd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain—

Methinks that JS is trying to make the judge think the charges are so ridiculous that he can't take them seriously...he's just a good ol boy, no harm here, just give him what he wants and all will be fine...hope the judge is up on some psychology about how sly predators are....

Reader
02-12-2012, 05:55 PM
What a backassward state that is! :banghead:


You can say that again!

It almost seems the legislature made the laws as hard as they can in order to let abusers get a break....what's up with that? From the link above:


That’s why all 49 other states, the District of Columbia, the federal government and the military allow experts to testify at trial about the behaviors of abuse victims.

Pennsylvania does not. And it causes prosecutors to lose cases, said Greg Rowe, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association’s legislative liaison.

“We need to be able to respond in kind that there is a reason for this,” Rowe said. “It’s not the victim’s fault. We can bring an expert to say why this sort of thing happens, why it does not mean that the evidence is less strong as a result.”

The reason for the delay in Pennsylvania is case law that dates to 1988 that such expert testimony shouldn’t be allowed in court in this state. Legislation would override that, Rowe said.

J. J. in Phila
02-12-2012, 07:20 PM
Kathleen Kane election story
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Patrick-Murphy-vs-Kathleen-Kane-Debate-139156619.html

Two Democrats going after the Republican Governor. It's not much, but Murphy has a better shot in the general election. It will still be hard.

Reader
02-12-2012, 07:36 PM
Two Democrats going after the Republican Governor. It's not much, but Murphy has a better shot in the general election. It will still be hard.

From the link:

No Democrat ever has won the AG’s seat since it became an elected position in Pennsylvania.

Just Wow......

pinktoes
02-12-2012, 07:58 PM
If Sandusky ever goes to trial, we can be sure that the prosecution will read into the court record from page 27 of his book. There, he is describing a really iffy boat ride and how he tends to laugh when nervous. (It's his coping mechanism).

http://www.amazon.com/reader/1582613575?_encoding=UTF8&query=I laugh#reader_1582613575

IDK if you can actually access that directly, since amazon requires you to sign into your account in order to read at length. If anyone wants to, and hasn't already done so. Go to amazon.com. Set up an account (no; they don't harass you with emails). Find his book Touched. Do a word search for "laugh" and/or "nervous". Or otherwise access pg. 27.

J. J. in Phila
02-12-2012, 08:04 PM
From the link:



Just Wow......

The position of AG became elective in 1980; since then, the election was every four years. Anyone is limited to two consecutive terms. Only Republicans have been elected since that time. That includes one, Preate, embroiled in scandal that led to his resignation and conviction on federal charges.

The closest election was in 2008, when the seat was open. Corbett ran against Jim Eisenhower (D), who was a distant cousin of the POTUS of the same name. Eisenhower had run a fairly good race in 2000, and was fairly well respected. Corbett had been appoint to fill out the remainder of Preate's term from 1995-96, but had never run for anything other than a township commissioner's spot in the early 1980's. Corbett, in a bad year for R's, won by just over 50% of the vote.

Rlaub44
02-12-2012, 08:55 PM
The position of AG became elective in 1980; since then, the election was every four years. Anyone is limited to two consecutive terms. Only Republicans have been elected since that time. That includes one, Preate, embroiled in scandal that led to his resignation and conviction on federal charges.

The closest election was in 2008, when the seat was open. Corbett ran against Jim Eisenhower (D), who was a distant cousin of the POTUS of the same name. Eisenhower had run a fairly good race in 2000, and was fairly well respected. Corbett had been appoint to fill out the remainder of Preate's term from 1995-96, but had never run for anything other than a township commissioner's spot in the early 1980's. Corbett, in a bad year for R's, won by just over 50% of the vote.

And to bring it back to PSU, President Dwight Eisenhower's brother, Milton S. Eisenhower, was president of Penn State University from 1950-1956, and has an auditorium on campus named in his honor.

Small world, huh?

J. J. in Phila
02-12-2012, 09:27 PM
And to bring it back to PSU, President Dwight Eisenhower's brother, Milton S. Eisenhower, was president of Penn State University from 1950-1956, and has an auditorium on campus named in his honor.

Small world, huh?

Not really. Neither Corbett nor Jim Eisenhower had any direct ties to Penn State. Jim Eisenhower is a very distant cousin of Milton and Dwight David, and of a different political party. http://web.archive.org/web/20050305143147/http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/4153bbac23a76?in_archive=1

I knew some other very distant cousins of DDE; they spell the last name "Eisenhauer." I myself am the 5th cousin to a former Governor of Arizona, but I never met the guy. I didn't know about it until I read about his background in a newspaper. We had mutual ancestors, the last on of which died around 1800.

[And with a great deal of irony, I just saw my fifth cousin on television.]

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 10:33 AM
Court gives Jerry Sandusky everything he wants, dishes up his grandchildren to him on a silver platter, let's him do drive byes of his victims homes, let's him have any friends over he wants and he can keep throwing hi biscuits out in the yard for the dog while the kids are on the playground as long as he stays on the porch.



Oh and the ex-daughter in-law who does not want her kids near him....well this court found it would be best for those kids to be with Jerry but this court is differing it to the other court.

Oh yeah and Jerry can skype with everybody.

What freaking evil lurks in this case just astounds me.



http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20CROSS%20MOTIO NS%20TO%20MODIFY%20BAIL%20CONDITIONS.pdf

Concerned Papa
02-13-2012, 10:57 AM
Court gives Jerry Sandusky everything he wants, dishes up his grandchildren to him on a silver platter, let's him do drive byes of his victims homes, let's him have any friends over he wants and he can keep throwing hi biscuits out in the yard for the dog while the kids are on the playground as long as he stays on the porch.



Oh and the ex-daughter in-law who does not want her kids near him....well this court found it would be best for those kids to be with Jerry but this court is differing it to the other court.

Oh yeah and Jerry can skype with everybody.

What freaking evil lurks in this case just astounds me.



http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20CROSS%20MOTIO NS%20TO%20MODIFY%20BAIL%20CONDITIONS.pdf

My oh my, wouldn't it just be the strangest of all coincidences to find out THIS judge also has/had ties to The Second Mile?

This is SICK!

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 11:07 AM
Amendola lost a lot on discovery, but got trial in Centre County. http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20FOR%20DEF%27S%20MO TION%20FOR%20BILL%20OF%20PARTICULARS.pdf

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20COM%27S%20MOT ION%20FOR%20CHANGE%20OF%20VENIRE.pdf

pinktoes
02-13-2012, 11:09 AM
There's one good thing I see: IF investigators are on their toes, and want to do it, I betcha they can convince a judge to issue a warrant to remotely install a keylogger on Jer's electronics. It can be done effectively to capture Skype these days as well.

Also, as the pressure mounts on a pedophile who has his usual access to victims removed, he will often resort to alternative modes of pursuing his interests. Including things such as accessing child porn in chat rooms.

There are medications that are helpful in reducing these impulses, of course. With a compliant patient, who perhaps wishes to temporarily have some assistance with this.

I have no idea what medications Mr. Sandusky is on. Just a general discussion of what medical help is available to a cooperative pedophile.

Velouria
02-13-2012, 11:11 AM
Court gives Jerry Sandusky everything he wants, dishes up his grandchildren to him on a silver platter, let's him do drive byes of his victims homes, let's him have any friends over he wants and he can keep throwing hi biscuits out in the yard for the dog while the kids are on the playground as long as he stays on the porch.



Oh and the ex-daughter in-law who does not want her kids near him....well this court found it would be best for those kids to be with Jerry but this court is differing it to the other court.

Oh yeah and Jerry can skype with everybody.

What freaking evil lurks in this case just astounds me.



http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20CROSS%20MOTIO NS%20TO%20MODIFY%20BAIL%20CONDITIONS.pdf


Just saw this on the TruTV update and can barely control my disgust for this monster and all those who continue to enable him. :furious:

No change of venue, no outside jury pools, no restrictions on visitors or time outdoors for good ol' Jerry. I'm surprised the court didn't send him a muffin basket while they were at it.

Surely someone needs to start a fund to build a privacy screen between Sandusky's home and the playground area. Those children shouldn't be forced to sacrifice their recreation time because this judge is too cowardly to protect them. He's looking more and more like just another shill for the mighty Penn State machine. :tsktsk:

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 11:16 AM
Amendola lost a lot on discovery, but got trial in Centre County. http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20FOR%20DEF%27S%20MO TION%20FOR%20BILL%20OF%20PARTICULARS.pdf

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20COM%27S%20MOT ION%20FOR%20CHANGE%20OF%20VENIRE.pdf

Winning the Centre County jury might backfire on him. At least I hope it does. It sounded like the judge made it plain to Sandusky he can't complain about it in the future.

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 11:22 AM
There's one good thing I see: IF investigators are on their toes, and want to do it, I betcha they can convince a judge to issue a warrant to remotely install a keylogger on Jer's electronics. It can be done effectively to capture Skype these days as well.

Also, as the pressure mounts on a pedophile who has his usual access to victims removed, he will often resort to alternative modes of pursuing his interests. Including things such as accessing child porn in chat rooms.

There are medications that are helpful in reducing these impulses, of course. With a compliant patient, who perhaps wishes to temporarily have some assistance with this.

I have no idea what medications Mr. Sandusky is on. Just a general discussion of what medical help is available to a cooperative pedophile.

Right! This guy is a predator. A wolf prefers to stalk, chase and eat prey of a certain type and age group. If the pickings are slim then he will chose other prey modify his stalk, the chase and eat.

There is a real honest down to earth reason these people are called predators.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 11:26 AM
My oh my, wouldn't it just be the strangest of all coincidences to find out THIS judge also has/had ties to The Second Mile?

This is SICK!

They apparently checked and there were no ties. His home county is not in the same media market. He didn't even go to college in the state.

He appears to be an okay guy.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 11:37 AM
Winning the Centre County jury might backfire on him. At least I hope it does. It sounded like the judge made it plain to Sandusky he can't complain about it in the future.

Very true. Informed consent.

One third of the population has direct ties to Penn State. The Gricar angle brings in Centre County itself. These are the two biggest news stories in the county in the last decade.

Curley is moving for dismissal on perjury: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/without_joe_paterno_testimony.html

He actually has a fair shot at it.

Concerned Papa
02-13-2012, 11:40 AM
They apparently checked and there were no ties. His home county is not in the same media market. He didn't even go to college in the state.

He appears to be an okay guy.

IDK about that okay guy part. I can't imagine an accused pedophile being allowed to feed doggie treats to his dog 30 feet from a school playground anywhere else.

Tipstaff
02-13-2012, 11:50 AM
Is this a preview of how things are going to go for Sansdusky He must be feeling pretty empowered/confident right about now.

Do most home confined/bonded individuals get visits access to the home computer etc? IIRC they do not. Why has Sandusky been given the go ahead?

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 11:58 AM
IDK about that okay guy part. I can't imagine an accused pedophile being allowed to feed doggie treats to his dog 30 feet from a school playground anywhere else.

Sandusky has made no approach toward the children. I think that was the rationale. The distance was listed at about 100 feet.

The arguments looked reasonable, at least.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 11:59 AM
Is this a preview of how things are going to go for Sansdusky He must be feeling pretty empowered/confident right about now.

Do most home confined/bonded individuals get visits access to the home computer etc? IIRC they do not. Why has Sandusky been given the go ahead?

He hasn't been convicted; that is the rationale.

Tipstaff
02-13-2012, 12:02 PM
He hasn't been convicted; that is the rationale.


My point being his original restrictions have been removed to a large degree - what is the rationale?

He has 50 plus charges pending..........

Concerned Papa
02-13-2012, 12:10 PM
Very true. Informed consent.

One third of the population has direct ties to Penn State. The Gricar angle brings in Centre County itself. These are the two biggest news stories in the county in the last decade.

Curley is moving for dismissal on perjury: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/without_joe_paterno_testimony.html

He actually has a fair shot at it.

By no means do I mean to cast stones at Penn State in general, but such a substantial percentage of the population having direct ties to the school is only part of it.

Isn't it likely that a majority of the 2/3 remaining are, at the very least, Nittany Lions fans?

Isn't it likely that their loyalties run deep?

Does it really seem unlikely that they would love to find these charges against, what I believe you have referred to as a "pillar of the community", to be untrue?

I'm not necessarily saying their opinions and votes on a jury would be predisposed, but for this icon to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers could very easily be viewed as absolution for the scandal that has rocked their beloved university and community.

I'm not at all surprised that Jer and his lawyers are pleased as punch to be anticipating a jury of their "homies", but it concerns the hell out of me.

Concerned Papa
02-13-2012, 12:26 PM
Sandusky has made no approach toward the children. I think that was the rationale. The distance was listed at about 100 feet.

The arguments looked reasonable, at least.

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/Playground.png

Excuse me. I knew I didn't pull 30' out of thin air, but let me rephrase my comment to be a bit more accurate:

I can't imagine an accused pedophile being allowed to feed doggie treats to his dog 30 feet, 100 feet, or 130 feet from a school playground anywhere else.

pinktoes
02-13-2012, 12:29 PM
Is this a preview of how things are going to go for Sansdusky He must be feeling pretty empowered/confident right about now.

Do most home confined/bonded individuals get visits access to the home computer etc? IIRC they do not. Why has Sandusky been given the go ahead?

I think it's a smart move. His electronic communications with his grandkids are, per today's ruling, to require that the children NOT be alone during these communications. I THINK JS might be able to behave with them electronically. He sure knows he'll hang himself if he makes mistakes there henceforth.

As to his grandchildren, what makes me nervous is that it often takes a victim decades to recall his victimization as a child. I'm worried about his adult children and their level of recall and therefore caution wrt him and his grandchildren.

Waiting for the e-discovery if he screws up now.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 12:42 PM
http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/Playground.png

Excuse me. I knew I didn't pull 30' out of thin air, but let me rephrase my comment to be a bit more accurate:

I can't imagine an accused pedophile being allowed to feed doggie treats to his dog 30 feet, 100 feet, or 130 feet from a school playground anywhere else.

Actually, from the order, it is 130 feet from the play area. The ruling indicated he wasn't in physical proximity to them. He's obviously not going to be able to touch them at that distance. Overjoyed that he's that close, no. An unreasonable ruling? No.

Quiche
02-13-2012, 01:19 PM
I think a business in the area should donate some privacy slats to install in that chain link fence.

Heh, and it's ugly too. But I'm sure the kids would find it beautiful. :)

http://privacyslatking.com/store/6-chain-link-fence-industrial-privacy-slats-each.html

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 01:20 PM
By no means do I mean to cast stones at Penn State in general, but such a substantial percentage of the population having direct ties to the school is only part of it.

Isn't it likely that a majority of the 2/3 remaining are, at the very least, Nittany Lions fans?

Isn't it likely that their loyalties run deep?

Does it really seem unlikely that they would love to find these charges against, what I believe you have referred to as a "pillar of the community", to be untrue?

I'm not necessarily saying their opinions and votes on a jury would be predisposed, but for this icon to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers could very easily be viewed as absolution for the scandal that has rocked their beloved university and community.


CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA GOTHIC


I'm not at all surprised that Jer and his lawyers are pleased as punch to be anticipating a jury of their "homies", but it concerns the hell out of me.

I don't know. It could play out any number of ways, but at least the judge removed a ground for appeal (if it goes that far).

Belinda
02-13-2012, 01:25 PM
It seems to me that the judicial system is bending over backward for this guy. It disturbs me greatly. I see a lot of cronyism or something going on. These are not the typical restrictions on a suspected/charged pedophile. I think PA wants to make this go away. I am very afraid this guy will get off scott free and that would be soooo horrendous.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 01:34 PM
My point being his original restrictions have been removed to a large degree - what is the rationale?

He has 50 plus charges pending..........

That at 130 feet and with supervision, Sandusky poses no danger to the community.

Tipstaff
02-13-2012, 01:50 PM
That at 130 feet and with supervision, Sandusky poses no danger to the community.

Don't think we can assume or know that in regard to Sandusky. How many other people felt that about good old Jerry along the way. He skated for 12+ years on this type of assumption.

It doesn't seem logical that with the types of charges pending against Sandusky that he or his lawyer would address 'his needs and wants' at this point. Sandusky asking to be around children related or not is worrisome and should NOT be permitted in any circumstances.

Something just isn't right here - can't put my finger on it just yet but 2 + 2 are not adding up to 4. JMO

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 01:58 PM
That at 130 feet and with supervision, Sandusky poses no danger to the community.

That idea of theirs right there gets kids raped, people killed everyday just about.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 01:59 PM
Don't think we can assume or know that in regard to Sandusky. How many other people felt that about good old Jerry along the way. He skated for 12+ years on this type of assumption.

It doesn't seem logical that with the types of charges pending against Sandusky that he or his lawyer would address 'his needs and wants' at this point. Sandusky asking to be around children related or not is worrisome and should NOT be permitted in any circumstances.

Something just isn't right here - can't put my finger on it just yet but 2 + 2 are not adding up to 4. JMO

Well, with supervision, it should be okay for him to be around children; he's not accused of grabbing children at gunpoint. The will be monitoring him, something that wasn't done over the last 15 years.

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 02:01 PM
Don't think we can assume or know that in regard to Sandusky. How many other people felt that about good old Jerry along the way. He skated for 12+ years on this type of assumption.

It doesn't seem logical that with the types of charges pending against Sandusky that he or his lawyer would address 'his needs and wants' at this point. Sandusky asking to be around children related or not is worrisome and should NOT be permitted in any circumstances.

Something just isn't right here - can't put my finger on it just yet but 2 + 2 are not adding up to 4. JMO

Part of the problem is PA law I believe. They probably don't even have a definition for a predator. I read an article the other day that under the charges Jerry faces if he ever got out he would not have to sign up as a sex offender.

Tipstaff
02-13-2012, 02:10 PM
Part of the problem is PA law I believe. They probably don't even have a definition for a predator. I read an article the other day that under the charges Jerry faces if he ever got out he would not have to sign up as a sex offender.


Chilling Dr. Fessel.



Can someone repost the original Indictments?

What Sandusky is alleged to have done to children is disgusting, repulsive and horrific.

Thanks in advance.

wonders
02-13-2012, 02:18 PM
Chilling Dr. Fessel.



Can someone repost the original Indictments?

What Sandusky is alleged to have done to children is disgusting, repulsive and horrific.

Thanks in advance.

And yet again a piece of garbage gets to be around some of his grandchildren. And can stand outside of his house. I guess that's so he can stare at the children at the school. All I can say is Money Talks and BS Walks.
I'm LIVID.

gitana1
02-13-2012, 02:18 PM
Court gives Jerry Sandusky everything he wants, dishes up his grandchildren to him on a silver platter, let's him do drive byes of his victims homes, let's him have any friends over he wants and he can keep throwing hi biscuits out in the yard for the dog while the kids are on the playground as long as he stays on the porch.

Oh and the ex-daughter in-law who does not want her kids near him....well this court found it would be best for those kids to be with Jerry but this court is differing it to the other court.

Oh yeah and Jerry can skype with everybody.

What freaking evil lurks in this case just astounds me.
http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20CROSS%20MOTIO NS%20TO%20MODIFY%20BAIL%20CONDITIONS.pdf

Hey, once again we have the child's right to be from harm, (including death), subsumed by the adult's right to a presumption of innocence.

Come on, this man was seen RAPING a ten year old in a shower. Every child everywhere should have the RIGHT not to be anywhere near this man, ever, no matter the relation.

IMO, this guy wants desperately to see his grandkids so he can remind them of his threats to never tell what grandpa does to them.

I thought we would have learned to put children's rights above perps and suspects, after what happened in Susan Powell's case. Guess not.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 02:19 PM
Part of the problem is PA law I believe. They probably don't even have a definition for a predator. I read an article the other day that under the charges Jerry faces if he ever got out he would not have to sign up as a sex offender.

Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 Years of Age is actually a misdemeanor that is not a "Meagan's Law" offense. Some, Unlawful Contact with Minor, which doesn't sound too bad, is actually a "Meagan's Law" charge. The Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse with a Person under 16 Years of Age is a 1st degree felony and a "Meagan's Law" offense.

believe09
02-13-2012, 02:19 PM
It makes no sense at all that Sandusky's desires should trump ex DIL desire to keep her children safe, regardless of the veracity of the charges.

These are her children, not his. Is PA a state that considers grandparents rights in custody issues? She is the decisionmaker. I personally believe that the judge reached a little too far here when it comes to the grandchildren.

believe09
02-13-2012, 02:21 PM
Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 Years of Age is actually a misdemeanor that is not a "Meagan's Law" offense. Some, Unlawful Contact with Minor, which doesn't sound too bad, is actually a "Meagan's Law" charge. The Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse with a Person under 16 Years of Age is a 1st degree felony and a "Meagan's Law" offense.
BBM-the wording of this charge fascinates me.

It sound like Sandusky fell on the boys by accident and found himself penetrating them by accident.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 02:24 PM
Chilling Dr. Fessel.



Can someone repost the original Indictments?

What Sandusky is alleged to have done to children is disgusting, repulsive and horrific.

Thanks in advance.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20CRIMINAL%20COMPLAINT%202422%20OF%202011 .pdf

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 02:30 PM
It makes no sense at all that Sandusky's desires should trump ex DIL desire to keep her children safe, regardless of the veracity of the charges.

These are her children, not his. Is PA a state that considers grandparents rights in custody issues? She is the decisionmaker. I personally believe that the judge reached a little too far here when it comes to the grandchildren.

I think the grandchildren of the ex are exempted.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 02:32 PM
BBM-the wording of this charge fascinates me.

It sound like Sandusky fell on the boys by accident and found himself penetrating them by accident.


The "involuntary" deals with the victim.

ThoughtFox
02-13-2012, 02:36 PM
That at 130 feet and with supervision, Sandusky poses no danger to the community.

Yeah, I'm sure parents everywhere can sleep easy tonight because of Jerry's chain link fence. He wouldn't do anything stupid like trying to talk to children over the fence, or lure them into his yard using his friendly dog. No one could possibly object to their babies being under his predatory glare all day, could they? (Yes I'm being sarcastic.)

:cowcouch:

I was watching the video yesterday of Mrs. Sandusky trying to run over a reporter (classy) and it tickled me when the lawyer drove up and complained that people were walking their children through Sandusky's yard to the bus stop. Duh! I'm sure that was a happy selling point for him when he bought the place, along with the proximity to the school. But now society and these horrible parents with children near Jerry's house are somehow to blame for a predator in their midst.

Well, Happy Valentine's Day, Jerry ~ You can keep staring at children from your deck.

Oh, and I loved this quote from Jerry as he came out of court the other day:

"I've associated with thousands of young people over the years," said Sandusky, 68, the former Penn State defensive coordinator charged with 52 criminal counts involving 10 victims over 15 years. "And now, all of a sudden, because of allegations and perceptions that have been tried to be created of me, now I can't take our dog on my deck and throw out biscuits to him."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Sandusky-says-he-feels-people-have-turned-on-him-3234743.php#ixzz1mIAr0d1L

Yeah "all of a sudden" people don't want you around their kids.
And you are so hurt by that. Call a "waaahhhhbulance."

We have really gone through the looking glass, if you ask me. This is about as backwards as society gets. I honestly don't understand why he is even getting a chance to be with his grandchildren. Let's hope the attorney takes his hatchet away from him before he closes the door.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 02:44 PM
Yeah, I'm sure parents everywhere can sleep easy tonight because of Jerry's chain link fence. He wouldn't do anything stupid like trying to talk to children over the fence, or lure them into his yard using his friendly dog. No one could possibly object to their babies being under his predatory glare all day, could they? (Yes I'm being sarcastic.)


The law does not provide for parents' sleeping safely. That is what the judge is concerned with, what the law is.


We have really gone through the looking glass, if you ask me. This is about as backwards as society gets. I honestly don't understand why he is even getting a chance to be with his grandchildren. Let's hope the attorney takes his hatchet away from him before he closes the door.

If you wish that someone is innocent until proven guilty, it is the price you pay.

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 02:52 PM
Well, with supervision, it should be okay for him to be around children; he's not accused of grabbing children at gunpoint. The will be monitoring him, something that wasn't done over the last 15 years.

Supervised by the clueless people who never knew he was raping children in the basement. Yeah right!

Steely Dan
02-13-2012, 02:54 PM
Court gives Jerry Sandusky everything he wants, dishes up his grandchildren to him on a silver platter, let's him do drive byes of his victims homes, let's him have any friends over he wants and he can keep throwing hi biscuits out in the yard for the dog while the kids are on the playground as long as he stays on the porch.



Oh and the ex-daughter in-law who does not want her kids near him....well this court found it would be best for those kids to be with Jerry but this court is differing it to the other court.

Oh yeah and Jerry can skype with everybody.

What freaking evil lurks in this case just astounds me.



http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20CROSS%20MOTIO NS%20TO%20MODIFY%20BAIL%20CONDITIONS.pdf


Here are my favorite parts of this ruling;

http://i545.photobucket.com/albums/hh396/Rfeynman/Art/Sandusky1.jpg

http://i545.photobucket.com/albums/hh396/Rfeynman/Art/Sandusky2.jpg

Paraphrasing;

The defendant is presumed innocent and therefore cannot be treated as if he's guilty. He also can't help in his own defense without permission, so that's just like he can't help in his own defense at all?

So then I guess those things that multiple drunk driving offenders have to blow into to get the car started are illegal. After all we should presume them innocent. Monitoring anklets should be illegal too, after all the guy is presumed innocent before trial. Why are people detained without bail when people are presumed innocent?

The judge says reasonable conditions can be placed on a defendant. I guess I don't see what is unreasonable about any of the conditions he has? :banghead:

I hope this isn't used as a precedent by anyone.

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 03:00 PM
It makes no sense at all that Sandusky's desires should trump ex DIL desire to keep her children safe, regardless of the veracity of the charges.

These are her children, not his. Is PA a state that considers grandparents rights in custody issues? She is the decisionmaker. I personally believe that the judge reached a little too far here when it comes to the grandchildren.

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg216/kensaroo/jerrygkids.jpg

I would like to know what this so called court-appointed guardian ad litem weighed when he said it would be in the best interest of the 3 children to go over and sit on grandpa pedophiles lap vs what? Not being around a person charged with child rape?

Totally sick and you wonder if he belongs to some of the same clubs as old Jerry.

ThoughtFox
02-13-2012, 03:02 PM
The law does not provide for parents' sleeping safely. That is what the judge is concerned with, what the law is.

I understand about Jerry's rights - of course. I just know those parents and children have rights, too.

And what grates is that this isn't the first time a Judge has sided with Ol' Jer. Remember the woman - his homey from Second Mile - who gave him bail he would never have to pay?

Pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about the Judiciary and the way they are handling this case.


If you wish that someone is innocent until proven guilty, it is the price you pay.

No, no - I'm someone who believes fully in due process, and two sides to every case, etc.

But in my opinion, Sandusky is "not guilty" until proven otherwise. I refuse to use the word "innocent" where he is concerned.

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 03:24 PM
Vomit alert.

Jerry, Dottie, and their entire family are very relieved by and pleased with the Court’s decision earlier today modifying Jerry’s bail conditions to permit him to see and otherwise communicate with most of his grandchildren with the lone exception that his communication with three of his grandchildren will be left to the discretion of the judge presiding over the custody litigation involving the parents of those children. Jerry pursued visitation with his grand kids because they missed him and wanted to see him and communicate with him.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/jerry_sandusky_relieved_by_jud.html

Concerned Papa
02-13-2012, 03:54 PM
The law does not provide for parents' sleeping safely. That is what the judge is concerned with, what the law is.



If you wish that someone is innocent until proven guilty, it is the price you pay.

The law DOES provide for parent's sleeping safely. It's called NO BAIL.

THAT is what the judge should have been concerned with, and THAT is what the law allows.

What I wish, is for this particular someone with his FIFTY TWO charges relating to raping little boys to be innocent until proven guilty while BEHIND BARS.

Pensfan
02-13-2012, 03:55 PM
And yet again a piece of garbage gets to be around some of his grandchildren. And can stand outside of his house. I guess that's so he can stare at the children at the school. All I can say is Money Talks and BS Walks.
I'm LIVID.

I'm adding IGNORANCE ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS to your "money talks". I'm livid, too.

Velouria
02-13-2012, 04:04 PM
That at 130 feet and with supervision, Sandusky poses no danger to the community.

I understand what you're saying J.J., but I strongly disagree that Sandusky poses no threat to the community. Now if you're an adult female, chances are you're pretty safe. But I worry that Sandusky and his legal team are still attempting to intimidate witnesses. And don't get me started on his grandchildren and the poor schoolkids forced to share a fenceline with him. Heck, I'm even in favor of the SPCA doing a welfare check on his poor dog.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 04:24 PM
The law DOES provide for parent's sleeping safely. It's called NO BAIL.


It is not legal in PA, as per the precedent cited.

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 04:24 PM
I'm adding IGNORANCE ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS to your "money talks". I'm livid, too.

That truly is the problem. Jerry shows all the signs of a predator and a predator by definition needs to PREY!

There is no doubt in my mind that is exactly what he was doing throwing the dog biscuits out in the yard in front of the kids. It was a "fishing lure", look kids see the cute dog, see the little dog come on over and see the cute little dog. Come right up to the fence and you can pet him. Oh if you want to play with him you will have to go down to the gate. Hurry now it will be so much fun.

Sure it might just be a fantasy he is experiencing but I bet my bottom dollar I am right because Jerry Sandusky is a predator, he is always on the hunt, calculating his every move on everyone.

Watch a predator on the animal channel as they circle a herd of prey and watch how they chose the one they will chase. That is just what Jerry Sandusky does 24/7.

Pensfan
02-13-2012, 04:26 PM
Warning to the community around Sandusky's home and wherever he is now allowed to travel:
Pedophiles frequently have more than one paraphilia.

The community is not safe from Sandusky because they believe he can't groom any more victims.

A growing body of evidence indicates that many or most offenders have more than one category of deviant sexual behavior. For example, it used to be assumed that incest offenders could be clearly separated from other child molesters, but current evidence indicates that a substantial percentage of child molesters offend in both spheres. There is also some evidence that many exhibitionists engage in additional deviant sexual acts, rather than exhibitionism being an isolated category of behavior, as was once assumed.
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=62&articleid=401&sectionid=2736

passionflower
02-13-2012, 04:40 PM
Supervised by the clueless people who never knew he was raping children in the basement. Yeah right!

may I add that supposively Mrs S was home at the time............
in this case she is useless in saving anyone, JMOO

and as for the dog........hoe can he take care of and control his dog from the porch or deck?
Just another excuse to get furthur out in the yard....dog runs to fence to see kids and creep has to go also to get his dog..........

Disaster again, this guy is planning something........he's sick of being pinned inside of the house and it is winter...........what happens when nice weather comes, huh?
I am so angry! JMOO

passionflower
02-13-2012, 04:43 PM
These judges make me SICK!

Concerned Papa
02-13-2012, 04:47 PM
It is not legal in PA, as per the precedent cited.

Really now....I haven't seen this precedent. Could you please steer me in the direction of this little gem?

Pensfan
02-13-2012, 04:55 PM
I believe the Sandusky's chances of being convicted are greater if he is tried near State College. His attorney has miscalculated, IMO.

-Good ol' Jerry (sarcasm) hasn't been a representative of Penn State for over a decade.
-He isn't Joe Pa.
-His criminal behavior severely hurt Joe Pa. Some contribute it to killing Joe Pa.
-He brought shame to that county and the university where huge numbers of county residents are employed.
-News articles stated that Sandusky's NEIGHBORS were calling the police about him ogling the little children from his back porch.
-The ongoing reporters who clog the streets in State College are likely making more residents mad at Sandusky.
-It will be far more easier for the prosecution to shuttle the local witnesses back and forth to State College than Philadelphia or elsewhere.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 05:17 PM
Really now....I haven't seen this precedent. Could you please steer me in the direction of this little gem?

They were cited in the opinion.

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 06:03 PM
Sandusky Daughter-In-Law: He’s Not Safe For ‘Any Children’




Jerry Sandusky’s former daughter-in-law today railed against a court ruling allowing the accused child molester to visit with his grandchildren, saying that Sandusky had inappropriately touched her son and she suspected he was grooming the boy for sexual abuse.

Jill Thomas, who was married to Sandusky’s son Matt, said she would continue to fight against Sandusky being allowed to visit with his grandchildren.

Earlier today, a judge in Centre County, Pa., granted Sandusky’s request for relaxed bail terms that allow him to visit with all of his grandchildren except for Thomas’s children, due to her objections............................

“I do not believe it is safe for my children, or any children, to be around Jerry Sandusky,” Thomas said.




“Although I have kept silent up until now to protect my children and my family’s privacy, I can no longer keep silent about Jerry Sandusky’s request to be permitted to see my children,” Thomas said. “Shortly after news of the child sexual abuse criminal charges against Jerry Sandusky became public, my children reported to me that Jerry Sandusky, their grandfather, had inappropriately touched my son. I was devastated by this news.”

Thomas said she reported her son’s claim to authorities, who decided there was not enough evidence to charge Sandusky with a crime. But a psychologist who worked with her son after the revelation said Sandusky may have been grooming the boy for sexual abuse, Thomas said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/sandusky-daughter-in-law-hes-not-safe-for-any-children/

HMSHood
02-13-2012, 06:03 PM
Court gives Jerry Sandusky everything he wants, dishes up his grandchildren to him on a silver platter, let's him do drive byes of his victims homes, let's him have any friends over he wants and he can keep throwing hi biscuits out in the yard for the dog while the kids are on the playground as long as he stays on the porch.



Oh and the ex-daughter in-law who does not want her kids near him....well this court found it would be best for those kids to be with Jerry but this court is differing it to the other court.

Oh yeah and Jerry can skype with everybody.

What freaking evil lurks in this case just astounds me.



http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20MEMO%20AND%20ORDER%20TO%20CROSS%20MOTIO NS%20TO%20MODIFY%20BAIL%20CONDITIONS.pdf

He should be nowhere near children, including his grandchildren. I wonder if his adopted children are also victims as well.

HMSHood
02-13-2012, 06:05 PM
I believe the Sandusky's chances of being convicted are greater if he is tried near State College. His attorney has miscalculated, IMO.

-Good ol' Jerry (sarcasm) hasn't been a representative of Penn State for over a decade.
-He isn't Joe Pa.
-His criminal behavior severely hurt Joe Pa. Some contribute it to killing Joe Pa.
-He brought shame to that county and the university where huge numbers of county residents are employed.
-News articles stated that Sandusky's NEIGHBORS were calling the police about him ogling the little children from his back porch.
-The ongoing reporters who clog the streets in State College are likely making more residents mad at Sandusky.
-It will be far more easier for the prosecution to shuttle the local witnesses back and forth to State College than Philadelphia or elsewhere.

I think Sandusky hated Joe Paterno because he was in the shadow of him, felt he was getting all the credit, and he did not become head coach. That would certainly be bad blood.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 06:20 PM
I looked at the judge's order. He cited the rule relating to bail. He also indicated that, except for the **divorcing daughter-in-law** all the parents requested the visits.

epiphany
02-13-2012, 06:47 PM
Good for J Thomas, Sandusky's former daughter-in-law, for not only fighting back for her own children's safety (not just physically, but emotionally and psychologically), but for rallying against the system in the name of other potential Sandusky victims. Good for her for speaking out publicly against this madness.

Snipped

Under Cleland's ruling, Sandusky is allowed to meet in his home with 11 of his 14 grandchildren. Cleland deferred a decision on the remaining three grandchildren to a judge overseeing their parents' divorce, as their mother, Sandusky's daughter-in-law, objected to the request.

He granted Sandusky permission for other forms of contact, such as telephone calls and electronic communication like email and Skype, with all 14 grandchildren.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/us-usa-crime-sandusky-idUSTRE81C15520120213

It would be a cold day in H-E-double L before I ever, ever, would obey any judge's order/decision to allow Mr. Sandusky to visit with my children, supervised or not, Skype or no Skype. I would prepare for temporary care of the children, get ready for even an overnight or two for disobeying---whatever else needed to be done to protect them.

Simply put, I would not obey such madness were I ordered to. This Pedo Grandpa does not need to visit with his Grandkiddies-Skype, email or otherwise. Time for the courts to stop this nonsense now.

I am law-abiding, but I am not blindly obedient---don't care who they are (wearing robes, uniforms or halos). Course, MOO.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 06:56 PM
It would be a cold day in H-E-double L before I ever, ever, would obey any judge's order/decision to allow Mr. Sandusky to visit with my children, supervised or not, Skype or no Skype. I would prepare for temporary care of the children, get ready for even an overnight or two for disobeying---whatever else needed to be done to protect them.


And then someone else will take them. Cleland seems to have acted appropriately and with the consent of the parents in this case. The AG didn't show any threat.

epiphany
02-13-2012, 07:11 PM
And then someone else will take them. Cleland seems to have acted appropriately and with the consent of the parents in this case. The AG didn't show any threat.

Respectfully, BBM

With all due respect, one must be prepared for such when being disobedient.

The decision re the Mom who didn't follow the "sheep" will be handled by another judge. Mom appears sturdy, and should remain steadfast. It takes courage to stand up to this system.

Snipped

However, another court will have to decide whether Sandusky can see his three other grandchildren.

Those three children are locked in a custody battle. Cleland deferred the decision to the judge handling the child custody case. Sandusky’s daughter-in-law does not want her children around the accused child molester.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/13/sandusky-allowed-see-his-grandchildren

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 07:20 PM
Respectfully, BBM

With all due respect, one must be prepared for such when being disobedient.

The decision re the Mom who didn't follow the "sheep" will be handled by another judge. Mom appears sturdy, and should remain steadfast. It takes courage to stand up to this system.

Snipped

However, another court will have to decide whether Sandusky can see his three other grandchildren.

Those three children are locked in a custody battle. Cleland deferred the decision to the judge handling the child custody case. Sandusky’s daughter-in-law does not want her children around the accused child molester.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/13/sandusky-allowed-see-his-grandchildren

I was referring to the disobedience to the judge's order. I would not suggest it, unless you want spend a few months in jail for contempt (and letting someone else take the children).

In this case, Cleland passed the issue, properly, to the judge handling custody and authorized the visit from the other grandchildren as requested by their parents, with monitoring.

Reader
02-13-2012, 07:44 PM
BIG FAIL

by the judge on these decisions gifting JS with his desires. He must be on top of the world today.

As J.J. has been telling us it may follow the law but these decisions do not show any awareness by the judge of who and what a predator is and what they are capable of doing to maintain contact with children...any children will do, even his own grandchildren. Even if he does not violate them, he needs these contacts for his emotional and ego purposes, which Dottie does not fulfill, only little children. He's just a big ol boy after all. What a farce of justice for children.

So much of these arrangements are entrusted to the probation supervisor....I hope he is up to managing all this and will follow the instructions of what he is suppose to do to the letter.

As far as the children requesting these contacts, they have been fooled by JS all their lives too, and are now enabling these contacts with their own children. Hopefully, they won't live to regret it.

Reader
02-13-2012, 07:55 PM
They were cited in the opinion.

I read the opinion and the sections where these laws are cited but am not a lawyer and not understanding exactly why this judge is saying the restrictions requested could not be allowed.

You seem to be the expert on this order/law...are you saying that there is no situation/charge where 'no bail' would be appropriate prior to conviction? That doesn't make sense. What about a murder charge?

This is a man who has been charged with heinous crimes against 10 (at least) children, who now wants contact with children again and wants to leave his home to visit the victims (requested but denied).

How can this judge say he is not a danger to the community when he plainly shows that he still continues to demand contact with children in spite of the charges against him?

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 08:11 PM
I read the opinion and the sections where these laws are cited but am not a lawyer and not understanding exactly why this judge is saying the restrictions requested could not be allowed.

You seem to be the expert on this order/law...are you saying that there is no situation/charge where 'no bail' would be appropriate prior to conviction? That doesn't make sense. What about a murder charge?


Not an expert, but the judge is saying (correctly), that the purpose of bail is to make the defendant show up, not to protect the community. The conditions can protect the community, but they can't be used to punish the defendant.

This is a man who has been charged with heinous crimes against 10 (at least) children, who now wants contact with children again and wants to leave his home to visit the victims (requested but denied).

How can this judge say he is not a danger to the community when he plainly shows that he still continues to demand contact with children in spite of the charges against him?

"Charged" is the same of "convicted." Arguably, because other adults will be present, the children will be protected. The reports indicated that he had not tried to contact other children.

Reader
02-13-2012, 09:16 PM
Not an expert, but the judge is saying (correctly), that the purpose of bail is to make the defendant show up, not to protect the community. The conditions can protect the community, but they can't be used to punish the defendant.


"Charged" is the same of "convicted." Arguably, because other adults will be present, the children will be protected. The reports indicated that he had not tried to contact other children.

BBM 1 seems contradictory to me? If bail is just to make him show up for court why make any conditions at all? Obviously the ones made on JS were in order to protect the community's children from him. To him, that is punishment and he was taking subtle steps to violate the order. Don't they understand that 30 ft., 60 ft., 100 ft., 130 ft., 500 ft. is nothing to him when it comes to being able to watch children...he is overjoyed and the fact that it disturbs the kids, teachers and neighbors gives him a thrill. The judge just indulged him on that.

What does BBM 2 mean?

The judge and JS's family clearly do not understand how a predator works...just because he does not assault a child physically in front of witnesses does not mean he has not fulfilled a purpose of having influence over that child.

Pensfan
02-13-2012, 10:11 PM
Not an expert, but the judge is saying (correctly), that the purpose of bail is to make the defendant show up, not to protect the community. The conditions can protect the community, but they can't be used to punish the defendant.



"Charged" is the same of "convicted." Arguably, because other adults will be present, the children will be protected. The reports indicated that he had not tried to contact other children.
I know, JJ, that you aren't thrilled with the release of Jerry, but it should be posted that children can be hurt in numerous indirect ways by Jerry even if he doesn't touch them.
-He could snap shots of little boys at urinals in public restrooms while on trips with his detective.
-He could distribute child porn while wandering the planet with his detective.
-He could exhibit inappropriate behavior in front of little boys when standing exposed at a public restroom.
-The mismanagement of this condition of his bond does not serve as a deterrent to other pedos. It might actually give encouragement to pedos.
-Victims of pedophiles that read that a charged pedophile was released from his home confinement will be emotionally injured again.

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 10:42 PM
BBM 1 seems contradictory to me? If bail is just to make him show up for court why make any conditions at all? Obviously the ones made on JS were in order to protect the community's children from him. To him, that is punishment and he was taking subtle steps to violate the order. Don't they understand that 30 ft., 60 ft., 100 ft., 130 ft., 500 ft. is nothing to him when it comes to being able to watch children...he is overjoyed and the fact that it disturbs the kids, teachers and neighbors gives him a thrill. The judge just indulged him on that.


It is not illegal to watch children at play, even if, deep down, you want more. Whether it not his presence disturbs other people really is not an issue. If your presence on this site disturbs me (it doesn't), I don't have a right to prevent you from being here.


What does BBM 2 mean?


That is a typo (or maybe a Freudian slip). :)

Being "charged" is not the same as being "convicted." It means Sandusky cannot be punished unless he's found guilty. The judge has that what the AG wanted punishes him.

In all fairness, there is nothing in Sandusky's M.O. that suggest he'll walk out of his house, climb the fence, and molest a child; further the monitoring would immediately set of a police response. When he is with a grandchild, there is a parent to intervene.


The judge and JS's family clearly do not understand how a predator works...just because he does not assault a child physically in front of witnesses does not mean he has not fulfilled a purpose of having influence over that child.

I think the judge understands how the law works; no pun intended, it is a judgment call.

"Having influence over that child" is not a crime. Using that influence to molest a child is.

Rlaub44
02-13-2012, 11:04 PM
This letter/column in the Centre Daily Times covers some ground that has been speculated on in this forum, dealing with the ties between many of the case players through the Villages senior living project.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/11/3086343/a-scandalous-theory-worth-investigating.html

Not much we haven't covered, but interesting to see it getting outside attention.

Dr.Fessel
02-13-2012, 11:13 PM
This letter/column in the Centre Daily Times covers some ground that has been speculated on in this forum, dealing with the ties between many of the case players through the Villages senior living project.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/11/3086343/a-scandalous-theory-worth-investigating.html

Not much we haven't covered, but interesting to see it getting outside attention.

It is good to see, now if they could just dig into it as deep as we did they would really have a story. LOL LOL

J. J. in Phila
02-13-2012, 11:25 PM
I do the Gricar aspect on this, and I've already had people that are close to the case asking me if Sandusky could have paid him off. There is no evidence of it, and a bit of evidence against it, but there has been more coming out that just makes it look worse.

ThoughtFox
02-13-2012, 11:27 PM
I read the opinion and the sections where these laws are cited but am not a lawyer and not understanding exactly why this judge is saying the restrictions requested could not be allowed.

You seem to be the expert on this order/law...are you saying that there is no situation/charge where 'no bail' would be appropriate prior to conviction? That doesn't make sense. What about a murder charge?

This is a man who has been charged with heinous crimes against 10 (at least) children, who now wants contact with children again and wants to leave his home to visit the victims (requested but denied).

How can this judge say he is not a danger to the community when he plainly shows that he still continues to demand contact with children in spite of the charges against him?

This is apparent to anyone with common sense except apparently for the Judge. :maddening:

Of course, I don't know why I expected Jerry's adopted children to show much sense in the way they raise their kids either. Can you imagine growing up in that household?

I bet Grandma has had something to do with the kids allowing contact with Jerry also. She has probably laid a major guilt-trip on everyone. Once an enabler, always an enabler.

ThoughtFox
02-13-2012, 11:28 PM
It is good to see, now if they could just dig into it as deep as we did they would really have a story. LOL LOL

You should email them with your information, Dr.Fessel! Seriously! You've got the scoop on them by about a month.

Seek&Find
02-14-2012, 12:01 AM
IMO, part of his desire to see the kids may be to intimidate/manipulate those he's been inappropriate with that haven't spoken up yet. Imagine if your grandpa molested you and you were too scared to say anything, then you get a brief reprieve and don't have to see him for awhile, then suddenly your parents are taking you there. Poor kids. And with his kids/their parents and Dottie in denial and defending him, I doubt he'll really be supervised with them. In fact, I can imagine some twisted thinking like, he's not guilty, that's ridiculous, I'll leave the kids alone with him and prove it. Incredibly poor judgment, IMO.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 12:21 AM
IMO, part of his desire to see the kids may be to intimidate/manipulate those he's been inappropriate with that haven't spoken up yet. Imagine if your grandpa molested you and you were too scared to say anything, then you get a brief reprieve and don't have to see him for awhile, then suddenly your parents are taking you there. Poor kids. And with his kids/their parents and Dottie in denial and defending him, I doubt he'll really be supervised with them. In fact, I can imagine some twisted thinking like, he's not guilty, that's ridiculous, I'll leave the kids alone with him and prove it. Incredibly poor judgment, IMO.

If anything happened. Imaging and reality are two very different things. There is zero evidence that he was molesting his grandchildren, and he can't with the parents standing there.

Reader
02-14-2012, 12:21 AM
It is not illegal to watch children at play, even if, deep down, you want more. Whether it not his presence disturbs other people really is not an issue. If your presence on this site disturbs me (it doesn't), I don't have a right to prevent you from being here.


That is a typo (or maybe a Freudian slip). :)

Being "charged" is not the same as being "convicted." It means Sandusky cannot be punished unless he's found guilty. The judge has that what the AG wanted punishes him.

In all fairness, there is nothing in Sandusky's M.O. that suggest he'll walk out of his house, climb the fence, and molest a child; further the monitoring would immediately set of a police response. When he is with a grandchild, there is a parent to intervene.



I think the judge understands how the law works; no pun intended, it is a judgment call.

"Having influence over that child" is not a crime. Using that influence to molest a child is.


There's a lot of difference between me disturbing someone on this site with my opinions and the community being concerned about Sandusky watching their children. I haven't been charged with crimes against children; he has multiple charges of sexual abuse. I don't agree with the judge's decision that the prosecutors are trying to punish JS; I think they are responding correctly to the community's concerns about the safety of their children. According to the judge something bad has to happen before he can take any action so to him it must be worth the risk. Not to me.

And I also don't agree with the judge's judgment call FWIW. And here's why: (I had something more written regarding his influence over his grandchildren before but removed it) basically, what if he has molested other grandchildren besides the one mentioned and they have not told their parents? Maybe they were too little to understand at the time and no one else saw him. He could influence this child to 'keep a secret' about when 'grandpa was tickling him', for example. Since his family seems to be in deep denial I'm wondering how closely they really will be monitoring him during these contacts and communications.

All just IMO.

Reader
02-14-2012, 12:25 AM
IMO, part of his desire to see the kids may be to intimidate/manipulate those he's been inappropriate with that haven't spoken up yet. Imagine if your grandpa molested you and you were too scared to say anything, then you get a brief reprieve and don't have to see him for awhile, then suddenly your parents are taking you there. Poor kids. And with his kids/their parents and Dottie in denial and defending him, I doubt he'll really be supervised with them. In fact, I can imagine some twisted thinking like, he's not guilty, that's ridiculous, I'll leave the kids alone with him and prove it. Incredibly poor judgment, IMO.


Seek&Find...just posted almost the same....we're on the same wave length!

Reader
02-14-2012, 12:46 AM
If anything happened. Imaging and reality are two very different things. There is zero evidence that he was molesting his grandchildren, and he can't with the parents standing there.


The one mother says JS molested her child although there was not enough evidence for charges, it can hardly be called 'zero'.

The concern as stated before is that the parents won't be standing there supervising but will trust JS and Dottie.

Pensfan
02-14-2012, 01:15 AM
It is not illegal to watch children at play, even if, deep down, you want more. Whether it not his presence disturbs other people really is not an issue. If your presence on this site disturbs me (it doesn't), I don't have a right to prevent you from being here.



That is a typo (or maybe a Freudian slip). :)

Being "charged" is not the same as being "convicted." It means Sandusky cannot be punished unless he's found guilty. The judge has that what the AG wanted punishes him.

In all fairness, there is nothing in Sandusky's M.O. that suggest he'll walk out of his house, climb the fence, and molest a child; further the monitoring would immediately set of a police response. When he is with a grandchild, there is a parent to intervene.



I think the judge understands how the law works; no pun intended, it is a judgment call.

"Having influence over that child" is not a crime. Using that influence to molest a child is.

BBM
If our court systems were not backed up and those who were charged were put on trial immediately, I might agree with not "punishing" pedos (house confinement) until they were found guilty. An immediate trial isn't going to happen though and Jerry has almost 60 charges against him.

With the knowledge that many sexual deviants have more than one paraphilia, common sense should have dictated that Jerry should be prohibited from having contact with any children. To children, a very short exposure to direct or indirect sexual abuse is unhealthy. Even exposure to an exhibitionist who doesn't touch the child (in our society where this violates a cultural norm) can remain forever as a memory and cause feelings of distress, fear, despair, and/or shame.

Go figure this one: If the judge had been asked if Jerry should smoke in his car with his grandchildren inside it, the judge would adamantly and responsibly state, "No! Cigarette smoke is unhealthy for children!" :furious:

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 01:21 AM
There's a lot of difference between me disturbing someone on this site with my opinions and the community being concerned about Sandusky watching their children. I haven't been charged with crimes against children; he has multiple charges of sexual abuse. I don't agree with the judge's decision that the prosecutors are trying to punish JS; I think they are responding correctly to the community's concerns about the safety of their children. According to the judge something bad has to happen before he can take any action so to him it must be worth the risk. Not to me.



And what is the difference? Looking is not harming. I'll be honest with you, I think the adult woman in my neighborhood extremely attractive. I certainly don't object to seeing a lady in a short skirt walking down the street in the summer. Yes, I girl watch. :) That does not make me a rapist. Finding them attractive does not mean that they are in any danger from me.

Likewise, some men find me attractive. Well, I'm not attracted to them. I'm frankly a bit disturbed by that; it makes me feel a little bit uneasy. Did they do anything wrong by finding me attractive? No, unless they act on it.

Simply watching someone in public isn't criminal, or a threat.

And I also don't agree with the judge's judgment call FWIW. And here's why: (I had something more written regarding his influence over his grandchildren before but removed it) basically, what if he has molested other grandchildren besides the one mentioned and they have not told their parents?

Even the one parent who objects to the visits has stopped well short of claiming any molestation. After investigation, LE didn't find any.

With a total lack of evidence of molestation and with monitoring, I don't see any real danger.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 01:27 AM
If our court systems was not backed up and those who were charged were put on trial immediately, I could agree with not "punishing" pedos (house confinement) until they are found guilty. An immediate trial isn't going to happen though and Jerry has almost 60 charges against him.


The trial will be happening quickly, and Sandusky gets time to prepare a defense.


With the knowledge that many sexual deviants have more than one paraphilia, common sense should have dictated that Jerry should be prohibited from having contact with any children. To children, even a very short exposure to direct or indirect sexual abuse is unhealthy. Exposure to an exhibitionist who doesn't touch the child (in our society where this violates a cultural norm) can remain forever as a memory and cause feelings of distress, fear, guilt, despair, and/or shame.


The fact that another adult is present should eliminate that possibility.


Go figure this one: If the judge had been asked if Jerry should smoke in his car with his grandchildren inside it, the judge would adamantly and responsibly state, "No! Cigarette smoke is unhealthy for children!" :furious:

No, the judge should have said, "Don't smoke in the presence of children. Since you have a habit of smoking in the car, don't get into a car unless there is another adult there when you are in the car with a child, who can prevent you from smoking"

katydid23
02-14-2012, 01:33 AM
And what is the difference? Looking is not harming. I'll be honest with you, I think the adult woman in my neighborhood extremely attractive. I certainly don't object to seeing a lady in a short skirt walking down the street in the summer. Yes, I girl watch. :) That does not make me a rapist. Finding them attractive does not mean that they are in any danger from me.

Likewise, some men find me attractive. Well, I'm not attracted to them. I'm frankly a bit disturbed by that; it makes me feel a little bit uneasy. Did they do anything wrong by finding me attractive? No, unless they act on it.

Simply watching someone in public isn't criminal, or a threat.



Even the one parent who objects to the visits has stopped well short of claiming any molestation. After investigation, LE didn't find any.

With a total lack of evidence of molestation and with monitoring, I don't see any real danger.

I disagree that just because he never ,apparently, molested his own grandchildren, that he should be allowed to have visitation with them.

He raped little boys, and many little boys, over many years. So his 'personal' attention towards his own little boys is always going to be suspect. And your assertion, that he can 'look and be attracted, as long as he doesn't touch'---uugghhh. How awkward and sickening that would be for the little ones to deal with, while sitting on Grandpas lap, or being tucked in for the night. YUCK.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 01:53 AM
I disagree that just because he never ,apparently, molested his own grandchildren, that he should be allowed to have visitation with them.

He raped little boys, and many little boys, over many years. So his 'personal' attention towards his own little boys is always going to be suspect. And your assertion, that he can 'look and be attracted, as long as he doesn't touch'---uugghhh. How awkward and sickening that would be for the little ones to deal with, while sitting on Grandpas lap, or being tucked in for the night. YUCK.

No, Sandusky is accused of raping little boys, but he hasn't been proved to have done so.

The kids seem fine with it; the parents, except for one, seem fine with it. He will be supervised. You might say "YUCK," but are not the one who will be doing it.

Reader
02-14-2012, 02:30 AM
And what is the difference? Looking is not harming. I'll be honest with you, I think the adult woman in my neighborhood extremely attractive. I certainly don't object to seeing a lady in a short skirt walking down the street in the summer. Yes, I girl watch. :) That does not make me a rapist. Finding them attractive does not mean that they are in any danger from me.

Likewise, some men find me attractive. Well, I'm not attracted to them. I'm frankly a bit disturbed by that; it makes me feel a little bit uneasy. Did they do anything wrong by finding me attractive? No, unless they act on it.

Simply watching someone in public isn't criminal, or a threat.



Even the one parent who objects to the visits has stopped well short of claiming any molestation. After investigation, LE didn't find any.

With a total lack of evidence of molestation and with monitoring, I don't see any real danger.

The difference, J.J., is that the ones you are watching and who are watching you are not children. And no, JS has not been convicted yet but he has been charged with over 50 counts of sexual abuse by 10 different boys/men and, to me, that should have made the judge think more about being careful having him around other children, even with 'supervision', which I highly suspect will not be as attentive as you think it will.

The one parent does claim that he molested her son and it was not that 'LE didn't find any', it was that there was not enough evidence to file charges:

http://www.timesonline.com/news/local_news/sandusky-family-member-accuses-him-of-molesting-grandchild/article_aa187875-4de4-5752-9ee7-17fd5dee7f3c.html

(Last response tonite..I want to read something else) :seeya:

Concerned Papa
02-14-2012, 08:03 AM
~Respectfully Snipped~

It is not illegal to watch children at play, even if, deep down, you want more. Whether it not his presence disturbs other people really is not an issue. If your presence on this site disturbs me (it doesn't), I don't have a right to prevent you from being here.



JJ, all I can tell you is if MY child attended that school, I would not allow Jerry Sandusky to sit on his deck watching my child, like a buzzard on a fence slobbering over his next meal.

I might start out by offering to build a tall fence to block his view, at my expense, if necessary. If that didn't work, I'd search for a more creative solution. His "right" to feed his doggie treats would never factor into my concern.

This man has been allowed to run amuck in this community abusing children for what appears to be decades. His actions have been ignored and his deeds unpunished by everyone from University officials, to heads of law enforcement, district attorneys, and numerous pillars of the community.

Now, with this judges ruling, his presence in the community has been allowed to continue prior to trial. He will be free, once again, to don his Penn State attire and go broadly grinning everywhere from his own back yard all the way to his victim's residences.

It's never going to stop until this community stops allowing it.

Belinda
02-14-2012, 09:01 AM
JJ, all I can tell you is if MY child attended that school, I would not allow Jerry Sandusky to sit on his deck watching my child, like a buzzard on a fence slobbering over his next meal.

I might start out by offering to build a tall fence to block his view, at my expense, if necessary. If that didn't work, I'd search for a more creative solution. His "right" to feed his doggie treats would never factor into my concern.

This man has been allowed to run amuck in this community abusing children for what appears to be decades. His actions have been ignored and his deeds unpunished by everyone from University officials, to heads of law enforcement, district attorneys, and numerous pillars of the community.

Now, with this judges ruling, his presence in the community has been allowed to continue prior to trial. He will be free, once again, to don his Penn State attire and go broadly grinning everywhere from his own back yard all the way to his victim's residences.

It's never going to stop until this community stops allowing it.


:goodpost: I couldn't possibly agree more. Very well put.

believe09
02-14-2012, 09:52 AM
And then someone else will take them. Cleland seems to have acted appropriately and with the consent of the parents in this case. The AG didn't show any threat.

Respectfully, I disagree with this. Mr Sandusky, and in fact the judge, does not trump the parents right to make the decision whether or not the children visit.

Mr. Sandusky is not a custodian of his grandchildren. My understanding of the order is that he is free to see them. Previously he was not allowed. Their parents are not required to visit him with their children, or Skype or take phone calls.

As for the custody issues with the soon to be or ex-DIL, I think this criminal judge appropriately deferred to the family court/probate judge handling the divorce. It would have been completely ludicrous for him to have reached that far...imo.

believe09
02-14-2012, 09:55 AM
The "involuntary" deals with the victim.

Yes,I knew that but thank you for confirming it.

believe09
02-14-2012, 10:03 AM
J.J., I want to thank you for your reasoned approach to all of this. I understand, I think, the box the judge was operating in. I think the judge had some latitude that we as the public would have liked to see go the way of the prosecution.

Absolutely Sandusky and his DT will be attempting to intimidate the witnesses/victims because that is what the defense does when it comes to charges like this. I will take this one step futher and state that I believe this is another way for Sandusky to force contact with these boys he pursued like a jilted lover after they were old enough to stay away from him or say no. If you believe the indictments, I hasten to say.

He is going to be able to get as close as he possibly can.

As for the watching the kids on the playground, let's face it for a man in his position to be behaving in such an overt fashion is pretty darn stupid. I would think his attorneys would strongly advise him to stop this because it will ONLY reflect very very badly on him, regardless of whether or not it is considered to be criminal behavior.

I suppose if I were an administrator at the school or an enterprising reporter, I would be tempted to capture those moments when he is out there.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 10:13 AM
The difference, J.J., is that the ones you are watching and who are watching you are not children. And no, JS has not been convicted yet but he has been charged with over 50 counts of sexual abuse by 10 different boys/men and, to me, that should have made the judge think more about being careful having him around other children, even with 'supervision', which I highly suspect will not be as attentive as you think it will.


Well, as far as I know groping or raping an adult woman would be illegal. I don't plan to do that, even if I am attracted to women. Maybe Sanduskyis attracted to young boys. That, in itself, is not illegal. It may be creepy, but creepy is not illegal.


The one parent does claim that he molested her son and it was not that 'LE didn't find any', it was that there was not enough evidence to file charges:


The last thing she claimed is that he might be grooming the child.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 10:15 AM
Respectfully, I disagree with this. Mr Sandusky, and in fact the judge, does not trump the parents right to make the decision whether or not the children visit.

That refers to the poster suggesting willfully disobeying a judge's order.

believe09
02-14-2012, 10:36 AM
Thank you, JJ-I misunderstood. I thought that Sandusky's children were somehow being forced to bring their children to Mr Sandusky, or forced to Skype etc with him. :)

FLmom777
02-14-2012, 10:42 AM
And then someone else will take them. Cleland seems to have acted appropriately and with the consent of the parents in this case. The AG didn't show any threat.

From my understanding of this order, it says that he is permitted visits, it does not order that the visits are to take place. It also says they are to be with the parents. I think that if any of the parents feel uncomfortable with having their children visit, they could simply decline any visit. I may be wrong, but that is how I interpreted it. Can anybody clarify this for me?

believe09
02-14-2012, 10:45 AM
I read the order the same way, FL...the parents can decide whether or not their children will physically visit their grandfather, Skype or take phone calls from him.

That is my belief, anyway. As an aside, I suspect I would pick phone calls over the other choices, but only if the grand kids want to speak with him. JMO.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 10:47 AM
JJ, all I can tell you is if MY child attended that school, I would not allow Jerry Sandusky to sit on his deck watching my child, like a buzzard on a fence slobbering over his next meal.


Put your child in a private school and pay the tuition. That's fine.


I might start out by offering to build a tall fence to block his view, at my expense, if necessary. If that didn't work, I'd search for a more creative solution. His "right" to feed his doggie treats would never factor into my concern.


That's fine too. If the school feels that it is a great enough problem, that's fine as well.

This man has been allowed to run amuck in this community abusing children for what appears to be decades. His actions have been ignored and his deeds unpunished by everyone from University officials, to heads of law enforcement, district attorneys, and numerous pillars of the community.


Those are the allegations, but as noted by Cleland, Sandusky has yet to be convicted.


Now, with this judges ruling, his presence in the community has been allowed to continue prior to trial. He will be free, once again, to don his Penn State attire and go broadly grinning everywhere from his own back yard all the way to his victim's residences.


With supervision. And when he shows up, the victim can slam the door in his face. The victims will have to confront him in court, anyhow.

It's never going to stop until this community stops allowing it.

The only way to stop it is to follow due process to convict him. If the community does not do that, just give him a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

believe09
02-14-2012, 10:52 AM
Now that I think about it, a photo of Mr. Sandusky watching the children play might raise enough money for the school to construct a fence.

Due Process is our best bet, no question. Although we spend a lot of time here on this board discussing cases that go wrong, in our opinion, most cases go right...at least that is what I believe.

Seek&Find
02-14-2012, 11:22 AM
My father's a pedophile. I didn't know he'd molested anyone until I was 20, and my little sister broke down after having her first child. A year later, my aunt, his little sister, told me he'd repeatedly violated her as a girl too. :(. She was too afraid of him to ever say anything. I wasn't surprised, although I was grieved for both of them, as my father leered at me for years. I can't tell you how creepy it is to have your father view you sexually. My mother would use this against us ie if she didn't want to buy us an outfit, she'd say, "Well, let your father see you in it." It was either stand there while your dad pictures you naked, or don't get the clothes. There's more, but I'll leave it at that. Yes, even just having someone look at you can be harmful.

Sandusky is pure manipulative evil. And IMO just the sheer volume of his accusers as well as independent accounts demonstrate the reality of his guilt.

Moo

Dr.Fessel
02-14-2012, 12:23 PM
That judge had page after page of testimony from children how Jerry would manipulate, shower them with gifts, bully, force, threaten, rape and shun them.

Then this judge just wants to bury his head in the sand and pretend like none of that ever went on in the family and they are all upstanding citizens that were never subjected to any of Jerry's manipulative ways or are under his control in anyway.

But just because this judge wants to pretend the grandkids are in no danger is does not make it so. There is evidence strange things went on in that home with the adopted son Matt. It should have been enough for that judge to say let's just protect the kids for now until this trial is over.


STATE COLLEGE, Pa. - November 16, 2011 (WPVI) -- It turns out that a member of Jerry Sandusky's family has felt the need to seek the court's help in protecting her own children.




As the sex abuse scandal broke out two weekends ago, Sandusky's daughter-in-law quickly filed for an emergency order preventing her children from being alone with the former Penn State defensive coordinator.

Jill Sandusky is in the process of divorcing Sandusky's adult son, Matthew.

In court records, she claims her mother-in-law, Dorothy, "attempted to convince her the children would be safe around Sandusky."

She goes on to say her relationship has since become impossible because of the "fundamental disagreement about the validity of the charges and the risk he poses to the children."

Deborah Long is Matthew Sandusky's biological mother.

"I've had concerns all along with Jerry," Long said.

She says her son first met Sandusky through his charity for at risk children The Second Mile. He was 7.

"Jerry was bringing gifts all the time for Matthew; it was clothing and money," Long said.

Soon, though, she began to sense a change in Matthew's behavior.

"Then it became where Matt was anxious to see Jerry. He backed away. Jerry would pull in the driveway and Matt would hide," Long said.

But at 16, Matthew began living with the Sanduskys.

She showed us court records from the Probation Department which said it had "serious concerns" about his living arrangements with the Sanduskys.

Citing poor academics and a sexual relationship between Matthew and an adult niece of Sandusky's who was living in the home.

Still, he remained there and the Sanduskys legally adopted him when he turned 18 two years later.

Deborah Long says she has no evidence her son was ever molested by Sandusky.

Action News tried to get comment from Matthew Sandusky at his State College home this afternoon, but a friend said he had no comment.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=8435012

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 12:32 PM
That judge had page after page of testimony from children how Jerry would manipulate, shower them with gifts, bully, force, threaten, rape and shun them.


And that will be unlikely if he just watches children and is supervised in any contact with his grandchildren.


Then this judge just wants to bury his head in the sand and pretend like none of that ever went on in the family and they are all upstanding citizens that were never subjected to any of Jerry's manipulative ways or are under his control in anyway.


It is not a question of pretending anything, unless you want to be pretend he was already found guilty. A judge can't do that.

As far as I know, being manipulative is not illegal (or we'll have to jail most of the parents and children in the US, not to mention all the lawyers and politicians).

Dr.Fessel
02-14-2012, 12:48 PM
And that will be unlikely if he just watches children and is supervised in any contact with his grandchildren.



It is not a question of pretending anything, unless you want to be pretend he was already found guilty. A judge can't do that.

As far as I know, being manipulative is not illegal (or we'll have to jail most of the parents and children in the US, not to mention all the lawyers and politicians).

BBM The children will be supervised by people who grew up under the manipulative, cunning, raping suspect thumb. The judge knows that.

Being manipulative in the process of molesting and raping a child is illegal.

This judge granted Jerry special rights that are not normally afforded people who are charged with raping children. It has nothing to do with if he has been found guilty or not.

It is a disgusting decision but one that does not surprise me in a state where thousands of children were stripped of their freedoms and jailed for years at the whim of a couple of crooked judges.

Quiche
02-14-2012, 12:51 PM
I'm disappointed with the judge's ruling on these issues. Sandusky, in light of all the statics we know about pedophiles, is indeed a threat to his granchildren-- as well as the children playing on the school playground. This isn't mere child porn, it's a dang peep show and lap dances. :mad:

Also, as far as having other adults present, when did he EVER have his victims completely alone? Part of his thrill, his MO, is to have other adults present. It adds to the risk of being caught-- he removed them from class right under the noses of other adults, he raped them in an open locker room, in a public swimming pool, flaunted them at well attended sporting events, published their pictures in his autobiography!! GMAB, other adults will be present. :pullhair:

I'm just hoping the judge gave him enough rope to hang himself. We don't know how far along Jerry is with his next victim, nor who that is. Is that who's pulling him to sit in the backyard, or is it one of those grandkids? He's facing the rest of his life locked away for good and we're to believe he'll suddenly lose his sex drive? I don't-- I think he'll try to live it up a little before it all has to stop. moo

Quiche
02-14-2012, 01:07 PM
I'm disappointed with the judge's ruling on these issues. Sandusky, in light of all the statics we know about pedophiles, is indeed a threat to his granchildren-- as well as the children playing on the school playground. This isn't mere child porn, it's a dang peep show and lap dances. :mad:

Also, as far as having other adults present, when did he EVER have his victims completely alone? Part of his thrill, his MO, is to have other adults present. It adds to the risk of being caught-- he removed them from class right under the noses of other adults, he raped them in an open locker room, in a public swimming pool, flaunted them at well attended sporting events, published their pictures in his autobiography!! GMAB, other adults will be present. :pullhair:

I'm just hoping the judge gave him enough rope to hang himself. We don't know how far along Jerry is with his next victim, nor who that is. Is that who's pulling him to sit in the backyard, or is it one of those grandkids? :behindbars: He's facing the rest of his life locked away for good and we're to believe he'll suddenly lose his sex drive? I don't-- I think he'll try to live it up a little before it all has to stop. :behindbars:

...and just think of the children on that playground who are being abused by someone else!! They know a monster is watching them at recess, and imo, they're being freshly traumatized potentially every day of the week. Why doesn't Dottie tell him to get his raggedly azz inside!?! If he's such a "big kid" himself, then why doesn't someone parent him? God forbid, if I were his wife I'd twist his ear off and drag him inside. :furious:

moo

:cool:


This wikipage is chock full of well researched reasons Jerry Sandusky should be confined, either in his home with no children or behind bars. It's a horrible stroll through an awful subject, but here we are.

Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pinktoes
02-14-2012, 02:32 PM
I've always wondered who all did all the social agency casework all these years that involved Sandusky's various foster children. Both the temporary placements and ones that became adopted children. And, we know that Fresh Air out of NY said back in the 70s they now believe they had some children in, IIRC, summer placement/camps (?) under the supervision of either Sandusky or The Second Mile.

Juvenile Court Probation Service caseworker names would be of interest too.

Plus, any Guardian Ad Litem personnel involved with Sandusky, TSM, or others under the influence of those agencies.

I know some years back that Patty F worked in juvie probation; and her ex-husband is now Supervisor there.

What about Emma Lange, Ray's 2nd wife? Ever serve as, maybe Guardian Ad Litem?

Lance Marshall, in any official or unofficial capacity involved with any possible victims of Sandusky or TSM donors, or even PSU donors. Sandusky's main reason and role in that PSU-provided office after 1999 was as a fund raiser. In Touched, he said he hated calling on potential donors and was bad at it. Yet raise money he did, long after he left as asst coach PSU.

We need to know all the adults involved. Then maybe somebody can assist investigators with new evidence.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 02:35 PM
Also, as far as having other adults present, when did he EVER have his victims completely alone? Part of his thrill, his MO, is to have other adults present. It adds to the risk of being caught-- he removed them from class right under the noses of other adults, he raped them in an open locker room, in a public swimming pool, flaunted them at well attended sporting events, published their pictures in his autobiography!! GMAB, other adults will be present. :pullhair:


Most of the time, he though that he was not in the presence of adults. 1997, 1998, and 2007 are all examples of where there was no other adult present. 2000 and 2002 is when he thought he would be alone.








This wikipage is chock full of well researched reasons Jerry Sandusky should be confined, either in his home with no children or behind bars. It's a horrible stroll through an awful subject, but here we are.

Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse)

And what are the legal reasons? Non-legal reasons make no difference under the law.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 02:40 PM
BBM The children will be supervised by people who grew up under the manipulative, cunning, raping suspect thumb. The judge knows that.



In the school yard?


Being manipulative in the process of molesting and raping a child is illegal.


And? If he cannot molest or rape, and manipulation cannot lead to it.


This judge granted Jerry special rights that are not normally afforded people who are charged with raping children. It has nothing to do with if he has been found guilty or not.


I think they apply across the board.


It is a disgusting decision but one that does not surprise me in a state where thousands of children were stripped of their freedoms and jailed for years at the whim of a couple of crooked judges.

Not relevant, since it doesn't involve this judge.

Belinda
02-14-2012, 02:55 PM
With all of the special treatment Jerry has received, I have to wonder if he is gonna cop a plea to some small and much reduced crime and get a slap on the wrist (probation.) I find it more likely than not at this point. An awful lot of people seem hell bent on letting him off.

Reader
02-14-2012, 05:14 PM
Well, as far as I know groping or raping an adult woman would be illegal. I don't plan to do that, even if I am attracted to women. Maybe Sanduskyis attracted to young boys. That, in itself, is not illegal. It may be creepy, but creepy is not illegal.



The last thing she claimed is that he might be grooming the child.

This just misconstrues what I meant in my post...there is no comparison to mutual adult sexual inclinations/acts, even illegal ones, and those of an adult with a child. This is comparing apples to oranges because it's a whole other mindset and pathology.

BBM

With the 'maybe' it's apparent there is disbelief of the GJ presentment which makes the discussion difficult since I'm not looking purely from a legal or defense viewpoint but from the children's viewpoint, wanting justice for them. I believe their testimony.

If there had been just 1 or maybe even 2 complaints that were made recently with no witnesses, I might have doubts too, and want to wait until JS is convicted to restrict his contact with his grandchildren and other kids. It's been a long time but I've worked cases of these types of complaints that were made during a divorce or for other personal reasons and CPS workers were cautioned to take that into account.

In this case there are multiple boys over a 15 year period, most of whom did not know each other, were different ages, and most of whom had never reported or threatened JS with telling what he had done to them in all those years, until they were ID'd and tracked down by the GJ and persuaded to testify. And there are reliable witnesses to JS's conduct with these kids. That leaves, to me, very little room for a conspiracy or plot against JS as he, his wife and his lawyer are alleging.

I'm sorry, but after reading the presentments several times there is just no 'maybe' to me about JS being attracted to little boys and grooming and attacking them sexually, and his continuing desire to do so again. This is not a personality blip; this is a sickness for which there is no cure, and as Concerned Papa said, he will continue as long as allowed.

How it will turn out legally remains to be seen of course but even if he is acquitted I will still think he is a predator. If that shows a bias, so be it, it's a bias for the children that I think have been victims of this man, and I have a right to my viewpoint as everyone else does.

As far as the last sentence, again this is not correct about what has happened with this DIL. She is also being used by the defense to cast doubt on the charges since her report about what JS did to her son could not be verified sufficiently for a charge of molestation. I'm again inclined to think that really happened since there IS outside confirmation. Per the link posted above by Dr. Fessel, the child has been to a counselor and the counselor is the one who brought up the grooming of the child by JS.

Thomas said she reported her son’s claim to authorities, who decided there was not enough evidence to charge Sandusky with a crime. But a psychologist who worked with her son after the revelation said Sandusky may have been grooming the boy for sexual abuse, Thomas said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...-any-children/

pinktoes
02-14-2012, 07:40 PM
Sandusky and his lawyer are both reckless if they allow any visits with his grandchildren until the trial is over. At the very least.

I personally don't care about them putting Mr. Sandusky at risk for further (unwarranted) allegations. But I care terribly about protecting those grandchildren. So, if they insist upon visits, and the Sandusky children are reckless enough to agree to visits, I think the only way to handle those, which protects the children and the legal interests of Sandusky is something like this:

Visits in a neutral place, with an experienced supervising professional, and with a parent. Furthermore, JS and visiting children must remain within view and armslength of the Supervisor at all times. AND there is both video and audio recording made and kept of all visits. With backup copies kept elsewhere.

That would protect Mr. Sandusky, and if his attorney truly is representing his best interests, then he should jump at the chance to handle visits this way.

Children should further receive prior education about good touch/bad touch. I'm so worried that some of Sandusky's children are not in a psychological position to represent their children's best interests in this matter.

And, was the TRO issued against Sandusky lifted once it was determined there was insufficient evidence to charge him wrt the child of Matt and Jill? Since there's a custody issue, and now this question of visitation with JS, is the guardian ad litem for that child still in place?

Pensfan
02-14-2012, 07:59 PM
The trial will be happening quickly, and Sandusky gets time to prepare a defense.

The fact that another adult is present should eliminate that possibility.



BBM and respectfully shortened

One of the victims stated that he turned around in the locker room's restroom to see Jerry standing there ogling him with an erection.

Jerry now has permission to wander into any public bathroom where young boys can be located as long as he is supposedly investigating with his detective. The detective was not ordered by the judge to "babysit" Jerry in public places where Jerry has a legitimate excuse to have his pants unzipped.

Imagine what a young victim will feel and think if Jerry exhibits another paraphilia in the Walmart bathroom. (Remember sexual deviants often have more than one paraphilia.) Imagine having to explain to your son what "that weird man" was doing in the bathroom and why "that weird man" seemed to want him to watch what he was doing. Imagine answering your son's 50 questions/day for the next month about "that weird man". Imagine having to tell your son why he shouldn't repeat this story to all the kids at school/the kids in his church youth group/grandmother/his Cub Scout friends. Because kids can't keep a secret, imagine CPS arriving at your son's school and removing him from class in front of everyone to interview him about why he watched a "weird man". Imagine CPS appearing without notice on your porch to interview you and make a complete assessment of the cleanliness of your home, dig into your mental and physical medical history, and assess your financial ability to care for a child.

Indirect sexual abuse is very unhealthy in many ways.

StellarsJay
02-14-2012, 08:36 PM
Pennsfan is close to what I feel and has followed the possibilities further.

The school kids are living their days next door to a real live bogeyman. Imagine trying to explain to your kid in a reasonable way just why adults and other kids don't trust the man next door. This occurs on other places too, if your luck is bad. But imagine the fifth grade kids telling each other scary stories and the words they use. Oh, but maybe they're all like Paterno, they don't know about that, that scary stuff.

Then imagine Sandusky imagining what those kids are imagining. Getting off on it? Maybe.

Yes, If I were a parent or teacher at that school. I'd be angry. I'd be trying to weigh whether the bogeyman effect has crested in four months or whether longer exposure- say a year- will make it cumulatively worse, and I should move my kid. It's not learning a few facts about sexual perversity that I'm thinking of, it's the sense of the proximity of evil.

mahmoo
02-14-2012, 09:50 PM
So....if I understand correctly.....in simple terms.....the judge gave the okay for the grandchildren to visit with Sandusky IF their parents have no problem with visitation. It's not a mandate that they HAVE to.....right? Where it's getting sticky is with Matt & his wife, who are in the divorce process, and the parents are NOT in agreement as to visitation with Jerry?

If my father--in-law had been accused of what Jer's been accused of I would NOT want my kids/grandkids around him, supervised or not, and I'm pretty sure my hubby would feel the same way if the tables were turned and it was my dad that had been accused.

It's better to err on the side of caution especially when there are children involved....it's just NOT worth any risk. I'm sorry but pedophiles are a sneaky bunch by their very nature and I wouldn't trust none of them even right in front of my own eyes.

I realize the Judge has to make decisions within the guidelines of the law (which need some SERIOUS tweaking imo) but it's hard not to wonder if that Judge would want his grandkids hanging out at Jer's house even under "supervision"?

Reader
02-14-2012, 09:57 PM
Sandusky and his lawyer are both reckless if they allow any visits with his grandchildren until the trial is over. At the very least.

I personally don't care about them putting Mr. Sandusky at risk for further (unwarranted) allegations. But I care terribly about protecting those grandchildren. So, if they insist upon visits, and the Sandusky children are reckless enough to agree to visits, I think the only way to handle those, which protects the children and the legal interests of Sandusky is something like this:

Visits in a neutral place, with an experienced supervising professional, and with a parent. Furthermore, JS and visiting children must remain within view and armslength of the Supervisor at all times. AND there is both video and audio recording made and kept of all visits. With backup copies kept elsewhere.

That would protect Mr. Sandusky, and if his attorney truly is representing his best interests, then he should jump at the chance to handle visits this way.

Children should further receive prior education about good touch/bad touch. I'm so worried that some of Sandusky's children are not in a psychological position to represent their children's best interests in this matter.

And, was the TRO issued against Sandusky lifted once it was determined there was insufficient evidence to charge him wrt the child of Matt and Jill? Since there's a custody issue, and now this question of visitation with JS, is the guardian ad litem for that child still in place?

BBM

Not sure about the TRO but in the court order about the visitation, the judge states that the guardian ad litem sent a letter that he thought visits with the DILs children would be in their best interests with certain conditions. The judge did not list the conditions and then referred the matter back to the custody judge to handle.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 10:04 PM
This just misconstrues what I meant in my post...there is no comparison to mutual adult sexual inclinations/acts, even illegal ones, and those of an adult with a child. This is comparing apples to oranges because it's a whole other mindset and pathology.

BBM

With the 'maybe' it's apparent there is disbelief of the GJ presentment which makes the discussion difficult since I'm not looking purely from a legal or defense viewpoint but from the children's viewpoint, wanting justice for them. I believe their testimony.



Legally, and that is what the judge goes by, there is a lack of belief, because it is yet to be proved. That is simply the way justice in the US is administered, and has been since before the Constitution was adopted.

Some of the charges, I expect, will be fairly easily proven in court. I would not be surprised if some of the others, those relating to 2000, for example, will difficult to prove.

Since we have yet to hear their testimony, I don't know if we can believe it or not. Where there are more independent people saying the same thing, it makes me more likely to believe it. In some of these cases, that isn't going to happen.

mahmoo
02-14-2012, 10:09 PM
My thoughts are why even bother with visitation under those "abnormal" conditions? Kids aren't stupid and they know when "things aren't right". I just don't see the benefit to the kids.....Jer may enjoy it and get something from it but the kids are definitely going to "sense" that things are odd/unusual/not quite right. A 15 or 30 minute "awkward" visit is not going to be of any benefit to a child. It may make Jer/Dotty feel better but I just don't see anything positive for a kid coming out of a visit like that. You know wherever/however it's done.....the kids are going to sense something is wrong/stressed/abnormal. I just don't think it will be enjoyable for them honestly.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 10:10 PM
It's better to err on the side of caution especially when there are children involved....it's just NOT worth any risk. I'm sorry but pedophiles are a sneaky bunch by their very nature and I wouldn't trust none of them even right in front of my own eyes.


In all seriousness, what risk is there? Presumably the parents will prevent anything from happening, and they can say no. There has no suggestion that Sandusky's children and their spouses sat around and said, **Let's have kids so Pops can molest them.**

I realize the Judge has to make decisions within the guidelines of the law (which need some SERIOUS tweaking imo) but it's hard not to wonder if that Judge would want his grandkids hanging out at Jer's house even under "supervision"?

If he was there with them, his answer might very well be yes.

J. J. in Phila
02-14-2012, 10:12 PM
My thoughts are why even bother with visitation under those "abnormal" conditions? Kids aren't stupid and they know when "things aren't right". I just don't see the benefit to the kids.....Jer may enjoy it and get something from it but the kids are definitely going to "sense" that things are odd/unusual/not quite right. A 15 or 30 minute "awkward" visit is not going to be of any benefit to a child. It may make Jer/Dotty feel better but I just don't see anything positive for a kid coming out of a visit like that. You know wherever/however it's done.....the kids are going to sense something is wrong/stressed/abnormal. I just don't think it will be enjoyable for them honestly.

Children of convicted murderers must think the same thing, even if they know their parent did it (even to the other parent).

Tipstaff
02-15-2012, 08:17 AM
More Penn State News - How will this affect the Sandusky situation?


Penn State ex-VP Schultz seeks dismissal of perjury


Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A former Penn State vice president wants a judge to throw out charges he lied to a grand jury investigating former football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky and didn't properly report suspected child abuse.

Gary Schultz filed the motions Tuesday. In court records he says his statements to a grand jury that the allegations were "not that serious" and that it wasn't clear a crime occurred are opinions that can't be proved false.

He's joining a motion filed Monday by co-defendant Tim Curley challenging the failure-to-report charge on the grounds the law was different in 2002, when they fielded a report about Mr. Sandusky being in the showers with a young boy.

The attorney general's office says it hasn't received the filings but will review them when it has.


First published on February 15, 2012 at 12:00 am


Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/12046/1210197-298.stm#ixzz1mSL2DZQL

pinktoes
02-15-2012, 08:49 AM
Everyone does understand that there is a possibility that some of Sandusky's children are themselves confused; might have been molested by him (or someone else, given their unsettled lives prior to their foster care placement with Sandusky); and might be child molesters themselves. Right? We do know that being molested as a child puts one at higher risk to become a molester--right?

SO, I have serious reservations about trusting any child of Sandusky's to monitor his grandchildren's visits with him. Seriously, why take that chance?

pinktoes
02-15-2012, 09:17 AM
The other legal risk to Sandusky in having visits with his grandchildren could arise if, as a result of visits now, a grandchild accuses him of a PAST molestation.

That could arise through various ways. If he did molest them in the past, a visit now triggers a suppressed memory of that and the child reports it. If he did molest them in the past, and the child is consciously aware of it, and has learned of the current charges against him, a visit might stir up feelings about the past and that child might now feel courageous enough or supported enough to report it.

Or, a grandchild who has been experiencing the psychological effects of having been in the grooming stage with him, might be triggered by a visit to report that.

Visitation now is going to have some tension involved. These children have heard things about the charges against g'pa (depending on their age). Or had an explanation (one hopes) about why they haven't been able to see him. Perhaps their parents will exhibit realistic tension around the visit.

And, just maybe, for those of you who cannot make that deduction short of a judge telling you it is true, maybe he is, in fact, a child molester whose usual access to children has been cut off. And so, when he gets a child on his lap, he might treat him differently than he has in the past. Sexually. In a subtle or not so subtle way. Again, I do not trust his grown children to be aware of what's going on--if they were themselves victims.

It might be helpful to read up on the cycle of abuse.

Some of the disagreement here is, I think, because we're talking about 2 different things: (1) Sandusky's legal rights while he awaits a trial; vs (2) the responsibility of adults to err on the side of caution in protecting the interests of children.

If I were the guardian ad litem, obviously I would've made a different recommendation to the judge. It's a professional judgment call, and subject to variance.

It might be helpful to review the Costa-Sandusky interview to see just how confused this man sounded. ('Confused' is being generous.)

believe09
02-15-2012, 09:49 AM
And that will be unlikely if he just watches children and is supervised in any contact with his grandchildren.



It is not a question of pretending anything, unless you want to be pretend he was already found guilty. A judge can't do that.

As far as I know, being manipulative is not illegal (or we'll have to jail most of the parents and children in the US, not to mention all the lawyers and politicians).

BBM- :floorlaugh:

It was nice to have a little levity in this horrific situation.

Belinda
02-15-2012, 09:52 AM
I personally believe he is guilty of the charges against him. Too much smoke, not to have a fire. I believe all steps need to be taken to immediately protect all children from him. How many more children will he have the opportunity to molest before trial? I would rather err on the side of protecting the children, then protecting the rights of a probable serial molester.

ThoughtFox
02-15-2012, 10:04 AM
In all seriousness, what risk is there? Presumably the parents will prevent anything from happening, and they can say no. There has no suggestion that Sandusky's children and their spouses sat around and said, **Let's have kids so Pops can molest them.**

If he was there with them, his answer might very well be yes.

What risk is there? Um, the risk that some of his adopted kids were not molested, and therefore don't believe he is dangerous. Half of them may be in denial, or feel obligated by family ties or merely by the fact that Jerry gave them a roof over their heads.

Therefore his kids might get too relaxed, trust him too much - as well as Grandma - and before you know it Grandma is checked out and "not listening" again as Grandpa is down in the basement molesting one of the grandchildren.

Let's not be so naive as to think this scenario couldn't happen. It happens every day in this country, and that's how the cycle of abuse continues.

Nobody wants to read a news story next year about how his adopted children "thought they could trust Grandpa Jerry" so they left innocent grandchildren in his care. No one wants to read about more victims.

J. J. in Phila
02-15-2012, 10:20 AM
Nobody wants to read a news story next year about how his adopted children "thought they could trust Grandpa Jerry" so they left innocent grandchildren in his care. No one wants to read about more victims.

The parents have said that he will not be alone with them.

Belinda
02-15-2012, 10:37 AM
The parents have said that he will not be alone with them.

BBM - I hope we can trust that. Just because they said it doesn't mean they will do it. There is no telling whether they have been molested themselves or what they really think of the situation. I don't believe it should be left up to them to hopefully follow that directive. Will we know if they don't? I doubt it.

Concerned Papa
02-15-2012, 11:14 AM
~Snipped~

I realize the Judge has to make decisions within the guidelines of the law (which need some SERIOUS tweaking imo) but it's hard not to wonder if that Judge would want his grandkids hanging out at Jer's house even under "supervision"?


If he was there with them, his answer might very well be yes.

Wonder if the judge is aware that Jer's lawyer said the following, explaining Grandpa Jer being in the shower with childern?:

Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills. 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.

http://deadspin.com/5868312/one-of-jerry-sanduskys-lawyers-says-he-was-only-trying-to-teach-troubled-youth-how-to-shower-properly

Wonder if the judge saw Jer's stumbling, bumbling answer to this question from Bob Costas?:

Disturbing...Sandusky Hesitates Answering "ARE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOUNG BOYS?" - YouTube

Wonder if the judge ever saw this video?

Jerry Sandusky's Method - YouTube

Think his answer might still be yes?

Velouria
02-15-2012, 12:03 PM
The other legal risk to Sandusky in having visits with his grandchildren could arise if, as a result of visits now, a grandchild accuses him of a PAST molestation.

That could arise through various ways. If he did molest them in the past, a visit now triggers a suppressed memory of that and the child reports it. If he did molest them in the past, and the child is consciously aware of it, and has learned of the current charges against him, a visit might stir up feelings about the past and that child might now feel courageous enough or supported enough to report it.

Or, a grandchild who has been experiencing the psychological effects of having been in the grooming stage with him, might be triggered by a visit to report that.

Visitation now is going to have some tension involved. These children have heard things about the charges against g'pa (depending on their age). Or had an explanation (one hopes) about why they haven't been able to see him. Perhaps their parents will exhibit realistic tension around the visit.

And, just maybe, for those of you who cannot make that deduction short of a judge telling you it is true, maybe he is, in fact, a child molester whose usual access to children has been cut off. And so, when he gets a child on his lap, he might treat him differently than he has in the past. Sexually. In a subtle or not so subtle way. Again, I do not trust his grown children to be aware of what's going on--if they were themselves victims.

It might be helpful to read up on the cycle of abuse.

Some of the disagreement here is, I think, because we're talking about 2 different things: (1) Sandusky's legal rights while he awaits a trial; vs (2) the responsibility of adults to err on the side of caution in protecting the interests of children.

If I were the guardian ad litem, obviously I would've made a different recommendation to the judge. It's a professional judgment call, and subject to variance.

It might be helpful to review the Costa-Sandusky interview to see just how confused this man sounded. ('Confused' is being generous.)


Good post, pinktoes.

I'm deeply concerned that if Grandpa Jer did in fact molest his grandchildren, these visits may present an opportunity for him to reinforce the abuser's "code of silence" through subtle threats, bribes, guilt, and so forth. Supervised visitation wouldn't necessarily prevent him from using this sort of influence on a child victim, particularly one with an emotional tie to the alleged perp.

StellarsJay
02-15-2012, 12:30 PM
Schultz is hoping to have his perjury charges dismissed, and I think they might be, although I think of the villians here he, not Paterno, is Number 2.

What is the obligation to report a child abuse allegation for Schultz, not as an academic, but as responsible for the campus police? If someone told a campus officer the same story, what would the officer's obligation become, and why should Schultz not have the same responsibility? Aren't police held to a higher responsibility?

Is there a law that says that an accusation of abuse made to police MUST be recorded and investigated to some minimal point? Was there one in 2002?
If not, there should be one and it should also stipulate that an outside agency has to sign off on the investigation having been done. Let the kid who came forward first pick a name for it.

If he beats the perjury charge by claiming he took it on himself to judge the allegation, or failed to understand it, then I hope there are other legal sanctions waiting.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/former_penn_state_vice_preside.html

BigCat
02-15-2012, 01:46 PM
Schultz is hoping to have his perjury charges dismissed, and I think they might be, although I think of the villians here he, not Paterno, is Number 2.

What is the obligation to report a child abuse allegation for Schultz, not as an academic, but as responsible for the campus police? If someone told a campus officer the same story, what would the officer's obligation become, and why should Schultz not have the same responsibility? Aren't police held to a higher responsibility?

Is there a law that says that an accusation of abuse made to police MUST be recorded and investigated to some minimal point? Was there one in 2002?
If not, there should be one and it should also stipulate that an outside agency has to sign off on the investigation having been done. Let the kid who came forward first pick a name for it.

If he beats the perjury charge by claiming he took it on himself to judge the allegation, or failed to understand it, then I hope there are other legal sanctions waiting.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/former_penn_state_vice_preside.html

Schultz is not a police officer. He's never been one. I'm sure his argument would be that he never considered himself in charge of the police force. On that point, I think he's right. If someone were breaking into the home of McQueary or Paterno or Curley, they wouldn't call Schultz. They would call a cop with a badge and gun. That's the proper way to report a crime. It's not complicated.

As for an investigation, Schultz testified he thought a investigation occurred. When asked who conducted the investigation, he said he wasn't sure.

J. J. in Phila
02-15-2012, 03:46 PM
Schultz is not a police officer. He's never been one. I'm sure his argument would be that he never considered himself in charge of the police force. On that point, I think he's right. If someone were breaking into the home of McQueary or Paterno or Curley, they wouldn't call Schultz. They would call a cop with a badge and gun. That's the proper way to report a crime. It's not complicated.

As for an investigation, Schultz testified he thought a investigation occurred. When asked who conducted the investigation, he said he wasn't sure.

He said that he supervised the police and the police, Harmon agreed with him.

Page 215 of the preliminary hearing transcript is key.

Pensfan
02-15-2012, 06:16 PM
Children of convicted murderers must think the same thing, even if they know their parent did it (even to the other parent).
Sometimes after children are sent to the home of a POI for a horrific crime, the POI does something consistent with his disturbed personality. Josh Powell chopped up his kids with an ax and then set them on fire. A judge thought it would be safe for Josh to have home visits because the visit would be supervised.

With defenseless individuals, authorities should err on the side of caution.

J. J. in Phila
02-15-2012, 08:11 PM
Sometimes after children are sent to the home of a POI for a horrific crime, the POI does something consistent with his disturbed personality. Josh Powell chopped up his kids with an ax and then set them on fire. A judge thought it would be safe for Josh to have home visits because the visit would be supervised.

With defenseless individuals, authorities should err on the side of caution.

No evidence of that here; further, it is unlikely that Sandusky ever killed anyone.

Reader
02-15-2012, 08:25 PM
Sandusky scandal costing PSU millions

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/15/sandusky-scandal-costing-penn-state-millions?hpt=hp_bn13

Penn State University says it has spent nearly $3.2 million on legal, public relations, and investigative fees because of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. The information was made public by a new university website aimed at informing students, alumni, and faculty about the latest developments of the scandal.

Itemized list included...

pinktoes
02-15-2012, 09:24 PM
No evidence of that here; further, it is unlikely that Sandusky ever killed anyone.

Ok, I'll go first. YET.

That's the point.

Most of us are reacting the same way Mary Amendola did when she heard Joe on TV answer the reporter's question, indicating Joe would allow his own children to be with Sandusky. Something like this: OMG, did Joe just say that?!"

Then, there's always Soul Murder to consider. Has Sandusky likely done that??

BigCat
02-15-2012, 09:47 PM
He said that he supervised the police and the police, Harmon agreed with him.

Page 215 of the preliminary hearing transcript is key.

He also supervised the Nittany Lion Inn, but if I wanted to book a room for the weekend, I wouldn't have called Schultz. And if I wanted to report a crime I witness on the Penn State campus, I wouldn't have called him either. Schultz is not a police officer. He's not even an attorney. Harmon testifed that he reported to Schultz on business and financial matters. Schultz never involved himself in law enforcement issues since, once again, he's not a police officer. Also, when Curley was asked if he ever went to the police about the shower incident, he said no. Obviously he did not think of Schultz as the police.

Tipstaff
02-15-2012, 10:41 PM
Anybody getting the feeling that since Paterno is gone everybody is gonna come out swinging and pointing the finger?

Every man for himself ....now that they aren't protecting Joe.

J. J. in Phila
02-15-2012, 11:56 PM
He also supervised the Nittany Lion Inn, but if I wanted to book a room for the weekend, I wouldn't have called Schultz.


No, but if I had a problem at the Nittany Lion Inn, where I have stayed, I would expect him to contact the appropriate person.


Also, when Curley was asked if he ever went to the police about the shower incident, he said no. Obviously he did not think of Schultz as the police.

Well, that isn't the person making the charge. What Curley thinks isn't what McQueary thought.

J. J. in Phila
02-16-2012, 12:06 AM
Anybody getting the feeling that since Paterno is gone everybody is gonna come out swinging and pointing the finger?

Every man for himself ....now that they aren't protecting Joe.

Schultz' problem is independent of Paterno. It is based on his testimony in the grand jury.

From the grand jury testimony read into the record at the preliminary hearing (p. 215):

Prosecutor: It's your testimony that you believe the 2002 incident was reported to the same agency, that child protective services agency, for an investigation as the '98 one had been?

Schultz: That's my recollection, yes.

pinktoes
02-16-2012, 06:56 AM
He also supervised the Nittany Lion Inn, but if I wanted to book a room for the weekend, I wouldn't have called Schultz. And if I wanted to report a crime I witness on the Penn State campus, I wouldn't have called him either. Schultz is not a police officer. He's not even an attorney. Harmon testifed that he reported to Schultz on business and financial matters. Schultz never involved himself in law enforcement issues since, once again, he's not a police officer. Also, when Curley was asked if he ever went to the police about the shower incident, he said no. Obviously he did not think of Schultz as the police.

EXACTLY. When I read applicable PA code on that issue, I realized that only the University Police officers actually have the same legal responsibilities as "regular" police. Schultz is NOT a police officer.

It also became clear to me why Harmon was kept totally out of the loop on--what was it, the 2005 incident?--anyhow, Schultz handled that himself. So that no one with the legal requirements of a police officer would be involved. If we ever see Harmon's testimony on that, it should be quite interesting.

I just don't see how Sandusky can ever go to trial IF he has the goods on some of the local power players, and IF that is allowed to come out in court. We'll see.

Tipstaff
02-16-2012, 07:08 AM
Schultz' problem is independent of Paterno. It is based on his testimony in the grand jury.

From the grand jury testimony read into the record at the preliminary hearing (p. 215):

Prosecutor: It's your testimony that you believe the 2002 incident was reported to the same agency, that child protective services agency, for an investigation as the '98 one had been?

Schultz: That's my recollection, yes.

Why does the newspaper article saying that Schultz and then Curley want the charges dismissed since Paterno isn't available for questioning as a second collaboration?

pinktoes
02-16-2012, 07:09 AM
"Pittsburgh attorney Caroline Roberto said in a motion filed in Dauphin County court Monday that Paterno’s statements can’t be used at trial, since she had no chance to cross-examine him when he testified before the secret grand jury, the paper reported."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/13/10396977-judge-allows-sandusky-to-see-grandkids-receive-visits?pc=25&sp=25

That'a the consensus I've been seeing. We got any PA lawyers on board here?

All along, the other consensus I've been seeing is that Schultz and Curley will likely get off on the perjury charges, but that the failure to report will stick.

J. J. in Phila
02-16-2012, 10:27 AM
Then, there's always Soul Murder to consider. Has Sandusky likely done that??


Soul Murder is not a crime, even if it's me trying to sing James Brown.

J. J. in Phila
02-16-2012, 10:29 AM
"Pittsburgh attorney Caroline Roberto said in a motion filed in Dauphin County court Monday that Paterno’s statements can’t be used at trial, since she had no chance to cross-examine him when he testified before the secret grand jury, the paper reported."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/13/10396977-judge-allows-sandusky-to-see-grandkids-receive-visits?pc=25&sp=25

That'a the consensus I've been seeing. We got any PA lawyers on board here?

All along, the other consensus I've been seeing is that Schultz and Curley will likely get off on the perjury charges, but that the failure to report will stick.

The might help out Curley, but Schultz, as noted, still has that problem with his GJ testimony.

The argument against failure to report is that the statute of limitation expired. They are trying to argue that, and that is a summary offense, well below a misdemeanor level crime. I think they could be fined, if found guilty.

Belinda
02-16-2012, 10:56 AM
Penn State is going straight by the Catholic playbook.

Quiche
02-16-2012, 12:03 PM
Soul Murder is not a crime, even if it's me trying to sing James Brown.

Well, good Lord, maybe it should be. Now, that's some legislation I'd be glad to consider. I'm guessing, however, that the term "soul" would need to be replaced by a cleaner scientific term, but we all know the extent of damage that can be inflicted to the mind and spirit of victims. I think it's a very progressive idea. Perhaps we've stumbled onto a wave of the future...?

moo

pinktoes
02-16-2012, 12:38 PM
Well, that wasn't meant to be a legal term. I believe some of what will be found to be actual crimes, will be such things as what one victim said Sandusky told him--that he'd harm the child's family if the child told.

Where I'm from, that crime--still unproven in a court of law--is subsumed under the rubric of "battery" usually.

I believe we all know what we're talking about here. These are children being coerced, threatened, confused, and terrified by a big football coach. Who has probably been enabled and protected by a bunch of other adults with money and power. If the law doesn't cover that, we need a new law.

And, JJ, I'm tempted to just post "Black" and wait for you to counter with "White". LOL. No problem for me, but why aren't you a lawyer? One of the most successful trial lawyers I ever knew was referred to by his firm's partners as "our guy quickest to assume an adversarial posture". It's not a criticism, BTW. Just noting it!

J. J. in Phila
02-16-2012, 03:17 PM
Well, good Lord, maybe it should be.

What "should be" and what is are two different things. The judge deals with what is.

J. J. in Phila
02-16-2012, 03:23 PM
And, JJ, I'm tempted to just post "Black" and wait for you to counter with "White". LOL. No problem for me, but why aren't you a lawyer? One of the most successful trial lawyers I ever knew was referred to by his firm's partners as "our guy quickest to assume an adversarial posture". It's not a criticism, BTW. Just noting it!

Low LSATs.

The thing is that these decisions are not based on "what feels good." They are based on what the law is.

StellarsJay
02-16-2012, 03:48 PM
Wall Street Journal Law Blog- just after Schultz resigned Nov 7
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/11/07/sandusky-case-did-shultz-and-curley-have-a-duty-to-report/
"Whether or not the “failing to report” charges survive, Curley and Schultz are each charged with count of perjury, which carries up to 7 years in jail. In real terms, they would likely face between one month and 12 months in jail, under the sentencing guidelines.

The “failing to report” charge, a summary offence, carries a maximum of 90 days in jail and a $200 fine. The perjury charges could live on, even without the reporting charges.

Pittsburgh lawyer Thomas J. Farrell, who represents Schultz, has said he will seek to have the reporting charge dismissed, because, to his reading, the mandated reporting rules only apply to people who come into direct contact with children. He also said the statute of limitations for the reporting charge is two years. The alleged abuse occurred in 2002."
So for me to feel justice is done, the perjury charge needs to survive. Or, at least that most business persons see Schultz as a stupid weasel who made Penn State responsible for millions of dollars in losses and expenses, rather than a loyal man who was trying to serve his institution by burying a crime. It would be nice if Schultz was just at the beginning of his career so this could blight the rest of his work years, instead of at the age to move to the Carribean.

I read the transcript- deny, deny, deny- no sense of his regretting having made a mistake.

Looking for a picture of Schultz' wife and found this:
http://live.psu.edu/flickrset/72157627612010861

Dr.Fessel
02-16-2012, 04:12 PM
No evidence of that here; further, it is unlikely that Sandusky ever killed anyone.

Pedophiles kill children all the time and because McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, Currie and Spanier all failed to identify or attempt to identify the little boy in the shower nobody knows if he is alive or buried in a field somewhere.

J. J. in Phila
02-16-2012, 05:45 PM
Pedophiles kill children all the time and because McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, Currie and Spanier all failed to identify or attempt to identify the little boy in the shower nobody knows if he is alive or buried in a field somewhere.

And thjere is zero evidence Sandusky did.

J. J. in Phila
02-16-2012, 05:51 PM
Wall Street Journal Law Blog- just after Schultz resigned Nov 7
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/11/07/sandusky-case-did-shultz-and-curley-have-a-duty-to-report/


I think the blogger is right.


So for me to feel justice is done, the perjury charge needs to survive. Or, at least that most business persons see Schultz as a stupid weasel who made Penn State responsible for millions of dollars in losses and expenses, rather than a loyal man who was trying to serve his institution by burying a crime. It would be nice if Schultz was just at the beginning of his career so this could blight the rest of his work years, instead of at the age to move to the Carribean.

I read the transcript- deny, deny, deny- no sense of his regretting having made a mistake.

Looking for a picture of Schultz' wife and found this:
http://live.psu.edu/flickrset/72157627612010861

Why do I think he will try the "Sergeant Schultz defense?" "I know nothing. NOTHING!"

A lot more truth in that post than humor.

Reader
02-16-2012, 08:43 PM
Looking for a picture of Schultz' wife and found this:
http://live.psu.edu/flickrset/72157627612010861

Respectfully snipped....thanks for the link...that's a keeper....found this also:

Penn State defends rights and files suit against insurer
Wednesday, February 15, 2012

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- Penn State today (Feb. 15) filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County against its primary general liability insurer, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association (PMA) Insurance Co.

The policies provide a legal defense and coverage of a lawsuit filed against the University regarding the alleged misconduct of Jerry Sandusky. PMA filed a lawsuit Jan. 31 in Philadelphia asking the court to excuse it of obligations regarding its duty to defend and to pay for a civil lawsuit filed against the University in relation to the Sandusky matter.


More at link....

http://live.psu.edu/story/57828

pinktoes
02-17-2012, 10:46 AM
Just gonna say one word to tuck away, because given the context of the interrelatedness Sandusky, Second Mile, PSU, politicians and local hotshot businessmen--I don't think the State will ever make the case.

The word is 'RICO'.

And I think JKA knew that a successful RICO case would have to happen to reach many of the players who enabled Sandusky and other pedophiles as yet unnamed. That's the best way to ensnare those involved, protect future victims. And, possibly, might be the only way to convict even Sandusky alone. Because, the enablers need to roll over on Sandusky, and each other.

PA's RICO statute is one of the broadest ones in the nation.

But, then, I'm not a PA lawyer. Can't we get one here who's interested in exploring the RICO possibilities?? NOT interested in dismissing them out of hand, or based on "the evidence" as we know it now.

I think that JKA was correct, that Gricar's disappearance was bigger than any single person. IMO, Gricar not only thought it'd be tough to nail Sandusky for the 1998 event, but he also wanted to go for the others. And that was the substance of JKA's disagreement with Gricar over his decision not to charge Sandusky back then. In 2005, he had more evidence, and more evidence of a coverup. But there was more evidence he needed.

I won't be arguing this one personally. I hope we'll see the RICO charges brought in future years, but have serious doubts about that, because of the folks involved. All, IMO

What I don't have a conviction on is whether JKA's writing was more about a disinformation campaign, or the denial by guilty parties. That's still up in the air in many minds.

Now, I'll bow out and turn the dismissal of the very RICO idea over to whoever wants to pursue it.

J. J. in Phila
02-17-2012, 02:00 PM
I think that JKA was correct, that Gricar's disappearance was bigger than any single person. IMO, Gricar not only thought it'd be tough to nail Sandusky for the 1998 event, but he also wanted to go for the others. And that was the substance of JKA's disagreement with Gricar over his decision not to charge Sandusky back then. In 2005, he had more evidence, and more evidence of a coverup. But there was more evidence he needed.



If Gricar wanted to make a case, why didn't he:

A. Prosecute it in 1998.

B. Investigate it using a grand jury.

C. Keep the case file on it.

Yes, that's right. The DA's Office does not even have a file on Sandusky.

StellarsJay
02-17-2012, 02:19 PM
The DA's Office does not even have a file on Sandusky.

So the little maverick college police force had the only file; it was almost an accident that one survived? One that Schultz says he didn't know they had?

And here I was thinking that private police forces were a bad thing.

pinktoes
02-17-2012, 02:39 PM
Prosecute it in 1998

Because RICO would net more than the one fish (Sandusky). But it required more evidence than Gricar had--ever. It's in hand now, I believe. Maybe not where we are looking for it.

Read up on RICO. Feared by all organizations, for good reason. Feared by all individuals, for good reason.

JJ: You can't make RICO go away by continuing to repeat your numbered items. Either (1) you don't understand what it is (and don't want to find out). Or,(2) you know very well, but don't want it put out there and looked at.

You're smarter than that, so I vote for #2.

RICO. Gricar couldn't go after all the criminals involved with Sandusky if he charged him during Gricar's lifetime. The evidence wasn't all there. AND, he wanted to charge more people, and more "entities" than just Sandusky. Read up on just how broadly reaching PA code goes in defining "entity".

J. J. in Phila
02-17-2012, 04:51 PM
So the little maverick college police force had the only file; it was almost an accident that one survived? One that Schultz says he didn't know they had?

And here I was thinking that private police forces were a bad thing.

Yes. The former DA, MTM, indicated it wasn't unusual, as there was no prosecution. From what I understand the GJ investigators didn't even know about 1998 until 2010.

By the same token, had Gricar been 'still investigating" after seven years, there would have been a file. The BPD also indicated that there was no evidence he was working on it in 2005

We can dismiss the myth that "Gricar was going to prosecute."

pinktoes
02-18-2012, 01:42 PM
Under RICO--heck, even with enough Sandusky-only crimes, if they were spread over enough counties--no single county DA was going to bring the charges. I think crimes (other than Jerry's) were committed in numerous locales outside of Gricar's. And, we see that odd hot-potato-toss in PA from local DA to State Atty General. Or to whoever is available and doesn't have a conflict/perceived conflict possibility. So, I don't think Gricar would've been the one to bring either all the RICO charges, at least.

Just a thought: As an investigator, if you were worried about the security of the evidence you were discovering, would you open a file? Maybe not. Especially if you tended to work alone.

Maybe some of that evidence was erased by someone else from Gricar's harddrive. Before they gave it the water treatment.

And just maybe he trusted someone enough, esp as he neared retirement, to put what evidence he had, plus additional leads, in their hands. Particularly if he suspected a person of interest was planning to murder him.

A lot of us are watching to see who tries to point the finger at someone else. It should be interesting.

J. J. in Phila
02-18-2012, 03:59 PM
Under RICO--heck, even with enough Sandusky-only crimes, if they were spread over enough counties--no single county DA was going to bring the charges. I think crimes (other than Jerry's) were committed in numerous locales outside of Gricar's.


First, we have no evidence of other crimes.

Second, if there were other crimes, crossing county lines, the AG's office would have jurisdiction.



And, we see that odd hot-potato-toss in PA from local DA to State Atty General.


Only because the local DA's wife was related to a family member of the victim.





Maybe some of that evidence was erased by someone else from Gricar's harddrive. Before they gave it the water treatment.


It was RFG that wanted to obscure that data.

pinktoes
02-19-2012, 08:28 AM
"It was RFG that wanted to obscure that data."

Yes, perhaps to protect what he'd found out.

One other note: just because "we have no evidence" of something yet, does NOT mean it hasn't happened. Things occur. Later law enforcement finds out. Still later they might come out in a court of law.

I'm not worried about evidence having been discovered that relates to Sandusky and others who might have been involved with his crimes. Or even about Gricar's disappearance. I'm worried about that evidence ever seeing the light of day in court. Because, once again, it isn't legal evidence till it is ruled as such in a court of law. That doesn't mean it hasn't happen.

A LOT of people are now working to develop new evidence related to Sandusky and others involved with his activities and their coverup, as well as Gricar's disappearance and its relationship to Sandusky. Some are doing so as good citizens, some as their jobs (as law enforcement, or as private investigators), and some for profit motives (the book deals and whatever). It's most encouraging. I pray some of it sees a courtroom eventually.

J. J. in Phila
02-19-2012, 09:18 AM
"It was RFG that wanted to obscure that data."

Yes, perhaps to protect what he'd found out.


You don't deliberately destroy data that you need. If you are correct, you are saying that RFG found something, and the hid it.


One other note: just because "we have no evidence" of something yet, does NOT mean it hasn't happened. Things occur. Later law enforcement finds out. Still later they might come out in a court of law.



You might want to rethink that, since that could easily apply to actions taken by RFG.

J. J. in Phila
02-20-2012, 03:25 PM
Sara Ganim just won the George Polk Award for Sports Reporting.

http://www.wytv.com/content/news/pastate/story/AP-reporting-on-NYPD-is-among-Polk-Award-winners/5WakHNlKQUiqLTt4sFOCzg.cspx


http://www.liu.edu/About/News/Univ-Ctr-PR/2012/February/Polk-PR_Feb-20-2012.aspx

Tipstaff
02-20-2012, 07:36 PM
Sara Ganim just won the George Polk Award for Sports Reporting.

http://www.wytv.com/content/news/pastate/story/AP-reporting-on-NYPD-is-among-Polk-Award-winners/5WakHNlKQUiqLTt4sFOCzg.cspx


http://www.liu.edu/About/News/Univ-Ctr-PR/2012/February/Polk-PR_Feb-20-2012.aspx

Congratulations to the 24 year old Ms. Ganim. She reported the information when the major papers/magazines did not.

ThoughtFox
02-20-2012, 07:57 PM
Congratulations to the 24 year old Ms. Ganim. She reported the information when the major papers/magazines did not.

Alert the Pulitzer Committee too!!! :woohoo:

J. J. in Phila
02-20-2012, 08:13 PM
Blog on it:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/20/3097673/congratulations-sara-ganim.html

J. J. in Phila
02-22-2012, 11:18 AM
A nice background piece by Ganim:


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/is_this_the_real_jerry_sandusk.html

Reader
02-22-2012, 06:47 PM
Christian conservative blames 'homosexual lobby' for 'smearing' Joe Paterno in Sandusky scandal

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2012/02/christian-conservative-blames-homosexual-lobby-for-smearing-joe-paterno-in-sandusky-scandal.html#storylink=cpy

A news release today via the Christian Newswire, blaming "the homosexual lobby" for "smearing" Joe Paterno over the Jerry Sandusky scandal:


ORWIGSBURG, Penn., Feb. 20, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- The firing of Joe Paterno is to distract us from the fact that the predations of Jerry Sandusky were homosexual. If he were a heterosexual, his victims would have been girls.

But Tom Ritter, who resides in Orwigsburg, Pa, says this time the homosexual lobby has smeared the wrong guy, and he plans to set the record straight by having every one of the Penn State trustees apologize, then resign.

Ritter intends to do this by leaning on the Pennsylvania legislature, which every year gives a generous amount to Penn State.


More at link....this is so wrong in so many ways I don't know where to begin....

StellarsJay
02-22-2012, 08:34 PM
Examining the Village at Penn State ties in 2002:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1076004-the-sandusky-scandal-and-end-of-happy-valley
which refers to
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/11/3086343/a-scandalous-theory-worth-investigating.html

ohiogirl
02-23-2012, 08:58 AM
Christian conservative blames 'homosexual lobby' for 'smearing' Joe Paterno in Sandusky scandal

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2012/02/christian-conservative-blames-homosexual-lobby-for-smearing-joe-paterno-in-sandusky-scandal.html#storylink=cpy

A news release today via the Christian Newswire, blaming "the homosexual lobby" for "smearing" Joe Paterno over the Jerry Sandusky scandal:


ORWIGSBURG, Penn., Feb. 20, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- The firing of Joe Paterno is to distract us from the fact that the predations of Jerry Sandusky were homosexual. If he were a heterosexual, his victims would have been girls.

But Tom Ritter, who resides in Orwigsburg, Pa, says this time the homosexual lobby has smeared the wrong guy, and he plans to set the record straight by having every one of the Penn State trustees apologize, then resign.

Ritter intends to do this by leaning on the Pennsylvania legislature, which every year gives a generous amount to Penn State.


More at link....this is so wrong in so many ways I don't know where to begin....

He doesn't even make sense to me. I think he is just trying to jump on the exposure for his cause.

Belinda
02-23-2012, 09:00 AM
Egads! Another fruit cake jumps into the fray. This guy can't really be serious. He sure thinks he has an awful lot of power. Guess we'll see.

Rlaub44
02-23-2012, 08:28 PM
Mike McQueary's house is for sale:

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/23/3100722/mcquearys-college-heights-home.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

Dr.Fessel
02-23-2012, 08:46 PM
FANTASTIC NEWS!!

Federal authorities are conducting separate investigation involving Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, The Second Mile

Federal authorities are apparently conducting an investigation involving Penn State, Jerry Sandusky and his charity, The Second Mile, parallel to the case already being prosecuted by the state attorney general's office.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/federal_authorities_are_conduc.html

StellarsJay
02-23-2012, 11:01 PM
Wandering off on Dr. Fessel's link I got to another Patriot News story
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_under_review_by_us.html about the Clery Act. That article was superficial, but a commenter quoted the Act itself. I hope they set the dogs on Schultz.
Comment:
"The website of the Student Press Law Center (www.splc.org/wordpress/?p=2846), has an article discussing a possible violation of the Clery Act by PSU in 2002. The site includes the following quote taken from the Clery Act:

"It is widely — and incorrectly — believed that crimes do not 'count' for Clery Act purposes unless police get involved. In fact, federal regulations provide that a crime must be tallied in year-end statistics so long as it is reported to any “campus security authority,” and that definition is exceptionally broad. It includes:

'Anyone with responsibility for campus security who is not a police officer, such as the operator of the security gate at the campus entryway. Any person or agency to whom students are told they can report crimes in the institution’s own 'statement of campus security policy' (and this statement is a public document that any university must disclose on request). An official of an institution who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities, including, but not limited to, student housing, student discipline, and campus judicial proceedings.'

To be clear, even if a crime is handled through the campus disciplinary board rather than through criminal channels, its existence cannot be withheld from end-of-the-year Clery statistics. Because the objective of many campus disciplinary bodies is to avoid involving police and creating a public record that may damage a student’s reputation, crimes processed as disciplinary violations often evade proper counting and reporting."

Velouria
02-24-2012, 10:08 AM
Egads! Another fruit cake jumps into the fray. This guy can't really be serious. He sure thinks he has an awful lot of power. Guess we'll see.

He sounds an awful lot like Fred Phelps (I refuse to refer to him as "Reverend") doesn't he?

Kook-a-doodle-dooooo! :chicken:

Dr.Fessel
02-24-2012, 03:31 PM
The U.S. Attorney's Office is asking Penn State to divulge payments from university board members made to the university or to third parties on the university's behalf, a spokeswoman said Friday.


The subpoena, dated Feb. 2, also requested information from 1998 to present about Penn State, former president Graham Spanier, two top officials who are charged -- Tim Curley and Gary Schultz -- Jerry Sandusky, and his charity, The Second Mile.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/financial_records_of_penn_stat.html


Looks like they got word someone made some payoffs to kids families.

Reader
02-24-2012, 04:23 PM
Report: Federal authorities seek Penn State records on Sandusky

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-us-crime-sanduskytre81n0yp-20120224,0,901371.story

Per Dr. Fessel's post above, here is another article that says they are also looking into Sandusky's travel records:

The request related to Sandusky's travel records, the source told the newspaper.

One of the alleged victims said in the grand jury report that he had been taken across state lines at least twice, to Tampa, Florida, and to San Antonio, Texas.

Reader
02-24-2012, 04:39 PM
Gardening catalog sets off firestorm

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/24/1879485/nursery-catalog-sets-off-firestorm.html

The open-ended brand of satirical cartoons that Tony Avent puts on the cover of his garden nursery catalogs have earned him sporadic hate mail for more than a decade.

Now his new spring catalog is getting the Wake County plant whiz investigated by Penn State University officials for possible trademark infringement. The cover also has triggered an angry storm of emails, phone calls and Facebook postings by Penn State alumni.

They're still upset over the firing of their beloved football coach, Joe Paterno, last fall and by the child sex abuse scandal involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

Avent says the real problem is that they don't understand satire.
------

The problem is mainly the drawing of Sandusky, who was charged in November with 40 counts of sexually abusing children. He is portrayed as the Cowardly Lion with a white and blue oval on his side that resembles the Penn State lion logo, and he is chasing three young boys. Nearby, Paterno appears as the Scarecrow, up on a stick and pointing in two directions as if clueless.

"It's offensive to show someone accused of child molestation chasing children while wearing the university logo," said Nancy Koebel of Fremont, Ohio, a member of the Penn State alumni association. "By him wearing that logo like that, it's like the university condoned the abuse or looked the other way, and he hadn't worked for the university for years."
------

"They have even been calling places where I'm supposed to speak and trying to get them to cancel out," Avent said.

The portrayal of Paterno, he said, was meant to show that the coach had been set up as a straw man and left hanging by the university leaders - the very thing that angry alumni have been saying. And Sandusky, well, he is a cowardly Nittany Lion. It's obviously not a positive thing to paint someone as the Cowardly Lion, Avent said.

Avent's wife died about two weeks go, and he said that the Penn State maelstrom is taking a toll.

"I'm sitting here trying to grieve and having to deal with these idiots who are angry about something they don't even understand," he said. "I think Penn State would just be shocked at the things they're saying and doing."


More at link...

Reader
02-24-2012, 04:55 PM
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1431&pictureid=13320

ThoughtFox
02-24-2012, 05:30 PM
As a satirical editorial cartoon - that's great. As the cover of a gardening mag? Not so much.

Just bad taste, and why would he think that people wanted to be reminded of all the bad stuff happening? I think maybe this man's grief is clouding his judgment.

And I wouldn't have understood that Paterno was just the "straw man" since he really did remain on the fence by passing the buck to others and keeping both Sandusky and McQueary around campus for years.

The other connotation of the Scarecrow is that he doesn't have a brain. That's probably what people thought he was saying. Can't say I disagree with him much. :innocent:

(Is that Michele Bachmann beckoning one of the children? My mind can't get itself around what he's trying to say there . . . scary.)

Dr.Fessel
02-24-2012, 06:09 PM
Here is the actual fed's subpoena.



http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/openness/DOJ_subpoena.pdf

Reader
02-24-2012, 06:15 PM
As a satirical editorial cartoon - that's great. As the cover of a gardening mag? Not so much.

Just bad taste, and why would he think that people wanted to be reminded of all the bad stuff happening? I think maybe this man's grief is clouding his judgment.

And I wouldn't have understood that Paterno was just the "straw man" since he really did remain on the fence by passing the buck to others and keeping both Sandusky and McQueary around campus for years.

The other connotation of the Scarecrow is that he doesn't have a brain. That's probably what people thought he was saying. Can't say I disagree with him much. :innocent:

(Is that Michele Bachmann beckoning one of the children? My mind can't get itself around what he's trying to say there . . . scary.)

According to wiki, he has a history of doing this and they are actually created by someone else:

Owner Tony Avent has a history of publishing satirical catalog covers. These covers, created by Jack Pittman have historically provoked controversy as they typically present one sided political satire, evidenced by letters contained in a hate mail section on the Plant Delights website.[14] In 2012, Plant Delights' Spring catalog cover ignited a strong reprisal from Penn State alumni, when the cover featured a caricature of former coach Jerry Sandusky dressed as a lion with a Penn State logo attached chasing children down a road. Numerous facebook comments directed to the business were deleted. Avent publicly commented on News 5 WRAL in Raleigh that he stands by his artwork.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Delights_Nursery#Controversy

My problem is that it's too busy looking...too many themes going on...it was probably commissioned months in advance also so these things were going on at the time.

The Sandusky part doesn't bother me but since Paterno died it would have been better to leave that out to me, but I think he just likes to cause controversy, and his thinking might be off as you mentioned.

I at first thought the Bachmann figure was gesturing toward the woman across the street with the 'money' sign, since she was short of money for her campaign, but now that you mention it, she looks like she's wearing a Dorothy outfit...the girly dress and red shoes? Don't know about that now.

I did notice Santorum with the tin hat, LOL.

J. J. in Phila
02-24-2012, 06:45 PM
NBC just announce that that the Fed's are looking at payments of hush money in the Sandusky case. It's worse.

Dr.Fessel
02-24-2012, 07:12 PM
NBC just announce that that the Fed's are looking at payments of hush money in the Sandusky case. It's worse. That is what I figured. They got word one of the families of a boy were paid off.

Instead of boosters paying money to players they might have someone paying money to a family.

Reader
02-24-2012, 07:15 PM
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/24/10498132-feds-launch-criminal-probe-in-sandusky-case-subpoena-penn-state-records?ocid=twitter

This is interesting also:

NBC News has learned that Sandusky had access to a Penn State Internet access account from shortly after his arrest until it was disabled sometime in the past two weeks. That means records of his account and emails stored on the Penn State University system would have been saved and be subject to a subpoena.

How stupid can you get to use the uni email? although I'm glad he did...

J. J. in Phila
02-24-2012, 07:18 PM
NBC Story: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46519401/#46519401

They are going back to 1998. http://www.centredaily.com/2012/02/24/3102498/penn-state-adds-detail-about-sandusky.html

Reader
02-24-2012, 07:19 PM
Here is the actual fed's subpoena.



http://www.psu.edu/ur/2012/openness/DOJ_subpoena.pdf

Thanks for that! I see it is addressed to Cynthia Baldwin...I thought she was leaving?

Dr.Fessel
02-24-2012, 07:25 PM
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/24/10498132-feds-launch-criminal-probe-in-sandusky-case-subpoena-penn-state-records?ocid=twitter

This is interesting also:



How stupid can you get to use the uni email? although I'm glad he did...

I wonder if two weeks puts it back to the time he got permission to skype with his grandkids? Maybe the Univ did not want to be part of that?

Reader
02-24-2012, 07:32 PM
I wonder if two weeks puts it back to the time he got permission to skype with his grandkids? Maybe the Univ did not want to be part of that?

That, and also soon after they got the subpeona and they realized there was a lot of stuff on there the school does not want to be accountable for....a little late for that....

Dr.Fessel
02-24-2012, 07:38 PM
You know I think Freeh really found something and had to turn it in. That is a very powerful and far reaching subpeona and they would need some good evidence to get it.



Freeh said his goal was to conduct a comprehensive, fair and quick review. His team of former FBI agents, federal prosecutors and others has already begun the process of reading the grand jury report and looking at records.

"We will immediately report any evidence of criminality to law enforcement authorities," said Freeh, who has no connection to Penn State.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7264524/penn-state-nittany-lions-hire-ex-fbi-director-louis-freeh-investigation

Steely Dan
02-24-2012, 08:03 PM
As a satirical editorial cartoon - that's great. As the cover of a gardening mag? Not so much.

Just bad taste, and why would he think that people wanted to be reminded of all the bad stuff happening? I think maybe this man's grief is clouding his judgment.

And I wouldn't have understood that Paterno was just the "straw man" since he really did remain on the fence by passing the buck to others and keeping both Sandusky and McQueary around campus for years.

The other connotation of the Scarecrow is that he doesn't have a brain. That's probably what people thought he was saying. Can't say I disagree with him much. :innocent:

(Is that Michele Bachmann beckoning one of the children? My mind can't get itself around what he's trying to say there . . . scary.)

I would have made Dorothy "Dottie" Sandusky beckoning the kids like she'll help them, but it's obviously not her. JMO

J. J. in Phila
02-24-2012, 08:21 PM
That is what I figured. They got word one of the families of a boy were paid off.

Instead of boosters paying money to players they might have someone paying money to a family.


I'm very worried about payoffs. :(

StellarsJay
02-24-2012, 08:57 PM
Yup, Canada's still worse.

Here's Canada's notorious pedophile Graham James leaving a victim impact hearing yesterday. Even his lawyer describes him as "the most hated man in hockey".
I'd like to paste in the picture but you'll have to follow the link. Yes, it was cold in Winnipeg yesterday.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/23/victim-impacts-statement

James pled guilty to 350 assaults on two boys in 1997 and served most of a 3.5 year sentence, and incredibly was pardoned in 2007- a scandal which helped change the pardon law.
He was found coaching hockey in Spain and disappeared again. Another victim wrote a book and James faced hundreds of new charges from two more players. He was found hiding in Mexico, voluntarily returned to Canada and pled guilty again. He is now awaiting sentence.

Canada is lumbering along to pass a "tough on crime" revision to the Criminal code which would have minimum mandatory sentences for criminals like James- right now having more than six pot plants has a stiffer penalty. James will be sentenced before it comes into effect. The Crown is asking for six years with possible parole. The defence is asking for a conditional 1 to 1.5 years at large in the community.

Although every citizen is supposed to report child abuse of any kind, there appears to be no effective penalty.
This is part of what an investigative panel is saying, in effect that the coming law change will not go far enough:
"when sentencing offenders in these cases, to place less emphasis on an offender's previous good character, since it is not unusual for such offenders to lack a prior criminal record; and require the courts to emphasize the emotional and psychological harms caused to children in assessing the gravity of the offences and the conduct involved."

Tipstaff
02-25-2012, 07:26 AM
I'm very worried about payoffs. :(

Will you elaborate at this point?

ThoughtFox
02-25-2012, 07:50 AM
Wow - these new developments! :what:

Sandusky case subpoenas seek payment records
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=367243

HARRISBURG - A federal subpoena related to the child sex abuse scandal involving a former Penn State assistant football coach, sent to the university earlier this month, sought records of payments made by trustees to the school or to third parties on the school's behalf, a university spokeswoman said Friday.

Along with Sandusky and the university, the subpoena also sought information about athletic director Tim Curley, retired Vice President Gary Schultz and former President Graham Spanier.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the subpoena sought hard drives from computers used by the four men, citing Powers, who did not return a follow-up call from The Associated Press.

J. J. in Phila
02-25-2012, 09:54 AM
Will you elaborate at this point?

No, I'll wait for evidence of anything.

TracyLynnS
02-25-2012, 11:43 AM
Is that Michele Bachmann beckoning one of the children? <snip>

It must have something to do with all the foster kids she's had?

But beyond that, I dunno. The Dorothy character helped everyone discover the good things they were looking for in their lives. On the other hand, Bachman's husband is rumored to be gay so is she enticing the boys from one bad situation into another?

I quit following politics a couple years ago because I got so sick of all the corruption, mudslinging, and plain old lies...

And I'm not clever enough to understand political cartoons. I can rarely figure out what they're trying to say, who's side they're on, who they're depicting, etc.

In this one, the Sandusky thing is obvious. The school mascot is a lion. Sandusky is a coward (yet a powerful lion - "cowardly lion") chasing the helpless kids.

I can pretty much gather that this cartoonist thinks the Occupy Wall Streeters want something for nothing and the employed garden workers are mad about that.

What's with the guy catching free acorns falling out of the tree? Is that a comment on the Acorn scandals?

Is that Michael Jackson's doctor handing out killer RX drugs to the Paterno scarecrow?

Why are the presidential candidates running across the yellow brick road? Are they ignoring current events and more concerned with their mad dash into the white house? I just don't get it at all.

Tipstaff
02-25-2012, 01:32 PM
<snip>

It must have something to do with all the foster kids she's had?

But beyond that, I dunno. The Dorothy character helped everyone discover the good things they were looking for in their lives. On the other hand, Bachman's husband is rumored to be gay so is she enticing the boys from one bad situation into another?

I quit following politics a couple years ago because I got so sick of all the corruption, mudslinging, and plain old lies...

And I'm not clever enough to understand political cartoons. I can rarely figure out what they're trying to say, who's side they're on, who they're depicting, etc.

In this one, the Sandusky thing is obvious. The school mascot is a lion. Sandusky is a coward (yet a powerful lion - "cowardly lion") chasing the helpless kids.

I can pretty much gather that this cartoonist thinks the Occupy Wall Streeters want something for nothing and the employed garden workers are mad about that.

What's with the guy catching free acorns falling out of the tree? Is that a comment on the Acorn scandals?

Is that Michael Jackson's doctor handing out killer RX drugs to the Paterno scarecrow?

Why are the presidential candidates running across the yellow brick road? Are they ignoring current events and more concerned with their mad dash into the white house? I just don't get it at all.

Thinking you are very astute! :what:

Dr.Fessel
02-25-2012, 01:55 PM
<snip>

It must have something to do with all the foster kids she's had?

But beyond that, I dunno. The Dorothy character helped everyone discover the good things they were looking for in their lives. On the other hand, Bachman's husband is rumored to be gay so is she enticing the boys from one bad situation into another?

I quit following politics a couple years ago because I got so sick of all the corruption, mudslinging, and plain old lies...

And I'm not clever enough to understand political cartoons. I can rarely figure out what they're trying to say, who's side they're on, who they're depicting, etc.

In this one, the Sandusky thing is obvious. The school mascot is a lion. Sandusky is a coward (yet a powerful lion - "cowardly lion") chasing the helpless kids.

I can pretty much gather that this cartoonist thinks the Occupy Wall Streeters want something for nothing and the employed garden workers are mad about that.

What's with the guy catching free acorns falling out of the tree? Is that a comment on the Acorn scandals?

Is that Michael Jackson's doctor handing out killer RX drugs to the Paterno scarecrow?

Why are the presidential candidates running across the yellow brick road? Are they ignoring current events and more concerned with their mad dash into the white house? I just don't get it at all.

Is that supposed to be Roy Kronk Casey is pointing at? LOL LOL

Reader
02-25-2012, 04:04 PM
Wow - these new developments! :what:

Sandusky case subpoenas seek payment records
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=367243

HARRISBURG - A federal subpoena related to the child sex abuse scandal involving a former Penn State assistant football coach, sent to the university earlier this month, sought records of payments made by trustees to the school or to third parties on the school's behalf, a university spokeswoman said Friday.

Along with Sandusky and the university, the subpoena also sought information about athletic director Tim Curley, retired Vice President Gary Schultz and former President Graham Spanier.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the subpoena sought hard drives from computers used by the four men, citing Powers, who did not return a follow-up call from The Associated Press.

Thinking that instead of getting their present charges dropped, Schultz, Curley and now Spanier ought to start worrying about facing new charges. Surely if there were booster payoffs to third parties, they all had to be involved in arranging them, IMO.

Also from your link:

Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers also disclosed that the Harrisburg-based U.S. attorney's office requested "reporting requirements of employers and staff relating to allegations of misconduct by staff or individuals associated with the university."

I'm glad the U.S. attorney is looking into those requirements also and whether they were met.

StellarsJay
02-25-2012, 09:22 PM
Very interesting take on duty to report in 2002.
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/02/child_abuse_regulations_are_cl.html

Reader
02-26-2012, 01:08 AM
Penn State, board of trustees money trails under investigation by feds

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/post_318.html

Federal investigators are looking at trails of money from Penn State and its board of trustees, computer hard drives of top officials and complaints that the university might have received about Jerry Sandusky or his charity, The Second Mile.

The information was released by Penn State on Friday after news that it had been subpoenaed by the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The subpoena seems to indicate that the feds are conducting an investigation simultaneously with the one by a state grand jury, which led to more than 50 counts of child sex abuse charges against Jerry Sandusky and perjury charges against two top Penn State officials.

It also seems to show that The Second Mile could be under investigation, too.

(Although Gov. Corbett seemed to say TSM was not included his office denied that and said he meant when he was the AG)

Federal prosecutors also informally requested documents from The Second Mile, a source said.

An attorney for the late Joe Paterno, fired as the scandal unfolded, confirmed that files regarding Sandusky and kept by Paterno will be shared with federal prosecutors, too.

Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers said the university is cooperating with the request, dated Feb. 2, which asks for the following:

•Any records of any payments by Penn State board members to the university or to third parties on the university’s behalf.
•Information starting in 1998 about Penn State, ousted President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley — he is on administrative leave — and retired Vice President Gary Schultz, Sandusky and The Second Mile.
•Hard drives from all four men, complaints, correspondence and out-of-court settlements about Sandusky or The Second Mile.
•Reporting requirements relating to allegations of misconduct by staff or individuals associated with the university.
Some members of the Penn State board of trustees, reached by phone Friday, said they had no indication of why those records were being requested. ------

Carter has interviewed for a position Penn State has created in the wake of the scandal for someone to solely handle Clery Act compliance.

Right now, that responsibility falls within the university police department.

“Only the Department of Education can say authoritatively that an institution was in violation of the Clery Act,” Carter said. “So, the best I can say is that I believe there is evidence of it.”

By law, individuals can’t be charged with violating the act. Only an institution can be charged, Carter said, and the law outlines the procedure for mandated reporting to include any official with significant responsibility for student and campus activities, including an athletic director or team coach.

------

Prosecutors say Schultz, head of university police at the time, and Curley never gave the 2002 report to campus police — the Clery Act reporter for Penn State.

That year, Penn State originally reported to the U.S. Department of Education that it had no sex offenses on campus.

Two years later, Security On Campus called the school out on it, and then-Police Chief Tom Harmon acknowledged a mistake was made and updated the report to 13.

More at link....