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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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

Dr.Fessel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

J. J. in Phila said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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 *advertiser censored*, it's a dang peep show and lap dances.

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. ullhair:

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

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 *advertiser censored*, it's a dang peep show and lap dances.

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. ullhair:

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




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.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse"]Child sexual abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

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.

Quiche said:

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. ullhair:

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Dr.Fessel said:

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

Click to expand...

In the school yard?

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

J. J. in Phila said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/

Click to expand...

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?

J. J. in Phila said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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"?