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

[Concerned Papa]

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]

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]

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]

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/headlin...aughter-in-law-hes-not-safe-for-any-children/

 

[HMSHood]

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/up...O CROSS MOTIONS TO MODIFY BAIL CONDITIONS.pdf

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

 

[HMSHood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 *advertiser censored* 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.