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

ThoughtFox · Feb 13, 2012

Reader said:
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 · Feb 13, 2012

Dr.Fessel said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

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 · Feb 14, 2012

Seek&Find said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

Seek&Find said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

Reader said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

Pensfan said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

katydid23 said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
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/loc...cle_aa187875-4de4-5752-9ee7-17fd5dee7f3c.html

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

Concerned Papa · Feb 14, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
~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 · Feb 14, 2012

Concerned Papa said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
The "involuntary" deals with the victim.

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

believe09 · Feb 14, 2012

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 · Feb 14, 2012

Reader said:
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 · Feb 14, 2012

believe09 said:
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.

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

Expecting the Unexpected

Expecting the Unexpected

Former Member

Verified Insider

New Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

Verified Insider

Verified Insider

Well-Known Member

Verified Insider

New Member

New Member

Doer of Things

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Verified Insider

Verified Insider

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics