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

[Tipstaff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.