Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #4

[wfgodot]

Another accuser?
http://www.newschief.com/article/20111127/APA/1111271180

The phrases "possibly assaulted" and "incarcerated in Oklahoma" don't necessarily make one feel confident here.

 

[Pensfan]

I like this article.

....prosecutors turned instead to a different section of Pennsylvania's criminal code for the most serious of the sex offenses the former Penn State assistant coach faces.

Each of those seven felony counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse carries a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison, the same as rape.
http://www.newschief.com/article/20111127/APA/1111271024

 

[Concerned Papa]

The phrases "possibly assaulted" and "incarcerated in Oklahoma" don't necessarily make one feel confident here.

True. About the only thing this possible victim could be sure about was that his letter had to go through the warden first.

 

[Pensfan]

I like this woman's attitiude, but is this is possible?


"I will prosecute that case myself if I had to make sure justice is done for those little boys," Mrs. Kane said. (Kathleen Granahan Kane is the Democratic candidate for state attorney general in PA next year.)

http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion...rtunity-risk-for-kane-1.1237317#ixzz1exu7Vqux

 

[Pensfan]

The Democratic candidate for attorney general Ms. Kane agrees that the time it took to begin prosecuting Sandusky was ridiculous (3 year investigation).

"I can only tell you from my experience that we have never had a case take that long, especially when you have a violent sexual predator out there," she said. "There could be a very good reason for it. I don't know what that is, though.
http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion...rtunity-risk-for-kane-1.1237317#ixzz1exvbtIDr

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yep, definitely nothing to do with indigence. The boys were not street urchins.

Also, note that in stressing "horseplay" Sandusky inadvertently spoke code for homosexual activity:

In google.books.com, use the search terms: 1920s+ horseplay sexual
which finds the link Love, sex, and marriage: a historical thesaurus - Page 70
where a definition states that horseplay is one of the euphemisms for "the act of giving sexual caresses."

In google.books.com, use the search terms: Cassells "horse around"
which finds the link Cassell's dictionary of slang - Page 741 where the second definition of "horse around" is "to make sexual advances to, to indulge in sexual horseplay."

In google.books.com, use the search terms: 1920s+ horseplay "dry rub"
which finds the link Cassell's dictionary of slang - Page 455 where the definition of "dry rub" is " v. 1 [late 19C] to beat severely. 2 [1950s+] (US gay) to wrestle or engage in similar 'horseplay' with strong homosexual overtones.”

Personally, I'm not troubled by the term "horseplay." It can, like "fooling around," have a double meaning, one of which is perfectly innocent.

I'm trying to play juror here, and I've been told that no prosecutor would ever want me on a jury.

I can, at least, make an argument that a 55 year old man showering with an unrelated 11 boy while both are naked isn't criminal. I can even make an argument that scrubbing, in that case his back isn't criminal. It is the bear hug by a 55 year old man of and unrelated 11 year old boy while both are naked in a shower that crosses the "open lewdness" line. There is no legitimate "hygiene" purpose for it.

 

[katydid23]

Personally, I'm not troubled by the term "horseplay." It can, like "fooling around," have a double meaning, one of which is perfectly innocent.

I'm trying to play juror here, and I've been told that no prosecutor would ever want me on a jury.

I can, at least, make an argument that a 55 year old man showering with an unrelated 11 boy while both are naked isn't criminal. I can even make an argument that scrubbing his back isn't criminal. It is the bear hug that crosses the "open lewdness" line. There is no legitimate "hygiene" purpose for it.

BBM

I think it borders on criminal. Why would a 55 yr old man climb into a shower naked with a young boy? There is no valid reason for him to do so.

And the scrubbing of the back would make it criminal, imo. There would be NO REASON for him to touch the child. NONE.

I do not think you will fins any man in his right mind who would get into the shower naked with an unrelated young boy, who did not have ulterior motives. Most men would wait and shower at a later time, then be forced to take a naked shower with a little boy. Reason being, it brings automatic suspicion, and rightfully so. imoo

 

[Pensfan]

The Second Mile had a budget last year of $2.4 million and nearly 10 percent of The Second Mile’s annual budget went to the Raykovitz household.

The Second Mile's president and child psychologist Dr. Jack Raykovitz cleared over $1 million in direct compensation since 1998. Dr. Raykovitz's total in that span: $1,300,145.

Katherine Genovese, WHO IS DR. RAYKOVITZ’S WIFE, was been with the charity since 1998 and was paid $912,563 since that time. Guess what degree Dr. Raykovitz’s wife’s holds? She has a M.Ed in school counseling. She also couldn’t have missed all those articles and continuing education courses about how to recognize a pedophile, in my professional opinion.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/second_mile_ceo_made_more_than.html

From here:
http://www.statecollege.com/shot-on-site/

 

[ThoughtFox]

Personally, I'm not troubled by the term "horseplay." It can, like "fooling around," have a double meaning, one of which is perfectly innocent.

I'm trying to play juror here, and I've been told that no prosecutor would ever want me on a jury.

I can, at least, make an argument that a 55 year old man showering with an unrelated 11 boy while both are naked isn't criminal. I can even make an argument that scrubbing, in that case his back isn't criminal. It is the bear hug by a 55 year old man of and unrelated 11 year old boy while both are naked in a shower that crosses the "open lewdness" line. There is no legitimate "hygiene" purpose for it.

I think that would fall under lewd and lacivious conduct on a minor, as well as indecent exposure.

I think it's going to be difficult to find a jury that will accept this as normal.

 

[Pensfan]

JoePa must have small cell lung cancer and didn't get a lobectomy. It appears he is on chemo.
http://www.wfmj.com/story/16131637/son-paterno-handling-cancer-treatments-well

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that would fall under lewd and lacivious conduct on a minor, as well as indecent exposure.

I think it's going to be difficult to find a jury that will accept this as normal.

The actual charge is "Open Lewdness." I've tried looking at the case law and appellate courts have sustained convictions on that that charge when:

1. There was no nudity.

2. No physical contact.

3. In a nonpublic place but with someone not consenting to watching.


"Open Lewdness" is one of things that can lead to a conviction under "Unlawful Contact with Minor." There is no need to demonstrate the defendant's intent.

They have four witnesses to Sandusky admitting it, plus the victim.

This one is strong (but it is only a 3rd degree felony).

 

[FloatingStar]

The Second Mile had a budget last year of $2.4 million and nearly 10 percent of The Second Mile’s annual budget went to the Raykovitz household.

The Second Mile's president and child psychologist Dr. Jack Raykovitz cleared over $1 million in direct compensation since 1998. Dr. Raykovitz's total in that span: $1,300,145.

Katherine Genovese, WHO IS DR. RAYKOVITZ’S WIFE, was been with the charity since 1998 and was paid $912,563 since that time. Guess what degree Dr. Raykovitz’s wife’s holds? She has a M.Ed in school counseling. She also couldn’t have missed all those articles and continuing education courses about how to recognize a pedophile, in my professional opinion.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/second_mile_ceo_made_more_than.html

From here:
http://www.statecollege.com/shot-on-site/

YES YES YES you are so right!!! Thanks so much for the information about Ms. Raykovitz. Mr. & Mrs. Raykovitz were raking in pretty big bucks. That doesn't mean they were party to pedophilia. It just might mean they were venal degenerates. I know that's strong language, but it has to be said. No one seems to have the cajones to make an honest statement. Pleeeeeezzzz, can't any of the players come out with an honest statement? It it all hiding under the skirts of slimy lawyers these days? Izzat what it's all about?

 

[FloatingStar]

Personally, I'm not troubled by the term "horseplay." It can, like "fooling around," have a double meaning, one of which is perfectly innocent.

Think about it. An old man in a shower with a pre-pubescent boy alone at night with no one else around engaging in horseplay?

I don't agree with you that the scenario in un-troubling.

 

[FloatingStar]

Click for Article

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Think about it. An old man in a shower with a pre-pubescent boy alone at night with no one else around engaging in horseplay?

I don't agree with you that the scenario in un-troubling.

The word "horseplay," or the term "horsing around," does not necessarily mean sexual activity, to me at least. It could include that, but I've probably used it to describe non-sexual activity.

I find a 55 year old man showering naked with a non-related 11 year old boy, also naked, very troubling. I would not necessarily find that to be illegal. It is a question of where the line is crossed into illegality.

I'd call just showering a grey area, but the bear hug very clearly crosses the line.

 

[FloatingStar]

The word "horseplay," or the term "horsing around," does not necessarily mean sexual activity, to me at least. It could include that, but I've probably used it to describe non-sexual activity.

I find a 55 year old man showering naked with a non-related 11 year old boy, also naked, very troubling. I would not necessarily find that to be illegal. It is a question of where the line is crossed into illegality.

I'd call just showering a grey area, but the bear hug very clearly crosses the line.

I totally lack legal knowledge. But I think that this may be an issue for future law. If an adult showers and "horseplays" around with a child without knowledge of the child's parent(s), a precedent should be set that makes that illegal. No innocent man would do this while hiding it from the parent(s) (unless he was some kind of dysfunctional *advertiser censored*).

Of course horseplay can be innocent. But the Sandusky's allusion to horseplay is either grossly naive (assertion of an idiot) or psychopathic. It seems pretty clear to me that it is a case of psychopathology. Will be decided in a court of law. Hopefully it is a fair process.

 

[katydid23]

I totally lack legal knowledge. But I think that this may be an issue for future law. If an adult showers and "horseplays" around with a child without knowledge of the child's parent(s), a precedent should be set that makes that illegal. No innocent man would do this while hiding it from the parent(s) (unless he was some kind of dysfunctional *advertiser censored*).

Of course horseplay can be innocent. But the Sandusky's allusion to horseplay is either grossly naive (assertion of an idiot) or psychopathic. It seems pretty clear to me that it is a case of psychopathology. Will be decided in a court of law. Hopefully it is a fair process.

The term 'horseplay' takes on a whole new connotation when one is naked in the shower with a young boy.

My husband and son 'horseplay' in the yard when they are supposedly doing chores or when they throw the ball back and forth they sometimes begin to play fight over something. But if they were naked and wet, that would be a whole 'nother thang.

 

[Pensfan]

The word "horseplay," or the term "horsing around," does not necessarily mean sexual activity, to me at least. It could include that, but I've probably used it to describe non-sexual activity.

I find a 55 year old man showering naked with a non-related 11 year old boy, also naked, very troubling. I would not necessarily find that to be illegal. It is a question of where the line is crossed into illegality.

I'd call just showering a grey area, but the bear hug very clearly crosses the line.

This is how the psychiatrist called in to testify before the jury will present this: Pedophiles very frequently have other paraphilias. Showering or undressing next to a naked child will be described as voyeurism and exhibitionism. The "washing" will be described as groping/molestation if Sandusky touched him anywhere below the shoulders. A bear hug will be described as sexually intimate behavior.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

This is how the psychiatrist called in to testify before the jury will present this: Pedophiles very frequently have other paraphilias. Showering or undressing next to a naked child will be described as voyeurism and exhibitionism. The "washing" will be described as groping/molestation if Sandusky touched him anywhere below the shoulders. A bear hug will be described as sexually intimate behavior.

And none of that is the issue. It just comes down to a matter if a bear hug constitutes "Open Lewdness," under the statute. I think it does, but that is the only activity (at least with Victim 6), that clearly crosses the line.

The rest, the showering, back washing, are in that grey area.

 

[Pensfan]

And none of that is the issue. It just comes down to a matter if a bear hug constitutes "Open Lewdness," under the statute. I think it does, but that is the only activity (at least with Victim 6), that clearly crosses the line.

The rest, the showering, back washing, are in that grey area.

I think it falls under lewd exhibition which is falls under sexual abuse of children. The naked hug had the same purpose as putting his hands on the boys thighs. It was to desensitize them to his intimate touches and to eventually sexually stimulate them.
§ 6312. Sexual abuse of children.
(a) Definition.--As used in this section, "prohibited sexual
act" means sexual intercourse as defined in section 3101
(relating to definitions), masturbation, sadism, masochism,
bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the
genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of
sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view
such depiction.

This is the least of Sandusky's worries. He is going to be charged with seven felony counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse which carry a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison, the same as rape.