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

[Reader]

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?[/QUOTE]

BBM

Not sure about the TRO but in the court order about the visitation, the judge states that the guardian ad litem sent a letter that he thought visits with the DILs children would be in their best interests with certain conditions. The judge did not list the conditions and then referred the matter back to the custody judge to handle.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

Legally, and that is what the judge goes by, there is a lack of belief, because it is yet to be proved. That is simply the way justice in the US is administered, and has been since before the Constitution was adopted.

Some of the charges, I expect, will be fairly easily proven in court. I would not be surprised if some of the others, those relating to 2000, for example, will difficult to prove.

Since we have yet to hear their testimony, I don't know if we can believe it or not. Where there are more independent people saying the same thing, it makes me more likely to believe it. In some of these cases, that isn't going to happen.

 

[mahmoo]

My thoughts are why even bother with visitation under those "abnormal" conditions? Kids aren't stupid and they know when "things aren't right". I just don't see the benefit to the kids.....Jer may enjoy it and get something from it but the kids are definitely going to "sense" that things are odd/unusual/not quite right. A 15 or 30 minute "awkward" visit is not going to be of any benefit to a child. It may make Jer/Dotty feel better but I just don't see anything positive for a kid coming out of a visit like that. You know wherever/however it's done.....the kids are going to sense something is wrong/stressed/abnormal. I just don't think it will be enjoyable for them honestly.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

In all seriousness, what risk is there? Presumably the parents will prevent anything from happening, and they can say no. There has no suggestion that Sandusky's children and their spouses sat around and said, **Let's have kids so Pops can molest them.**

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"?

If he was there with them, his answer might very well be yes.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

My thoughts are why even bother with visitation under those "abnormal" conditions? Kids aren't stupid and they know when "things aren't right". I just don't see the benefit to the kids.....Jer may enjoy it and get something from it but the kids are definitely going to "sense" that things are odd/unusual/not quite right. A 15 or 30 minute "awkward" visit is not going to be of any benefit to a child. It may make Jer/Dotty feel better but I just don't see anything positive for a kid coming out of a visit like that. You know wherever/however it's done.....the kids are going to sense something is wrong/stressed/abnormal. I just don't think it will be enjoyable for them honestly.

Children of convicted murderers must think the same thing, even if they know their parent did it (even to the other parent).

 

[Tipstaff]

More Penn State News - How will this affect the Sandusky situation?


Penn State ex-VP Schultz seeks dismissal of perjury


Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A former Penn State vice president wants a judge to throw out charges he lied to a grand jury investigating former football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky and didn't properly report suspected child abuse.

Gary Schultz filed the motions Tuesday. In court records he says his statements to a grand jury that the allegations were "not that serious" and that it wasn't clear a crime occurred are opinions that can't be proved false.

He's joining a motion filed Monday by co-defendant Tim Curley challenging the failure-to-report charge on the grounds the law was different in 2002, when they fielded a report about Mr. Sandusky being in the showers with a young boy.

The attorney general's office says it hasn't received the filings but will review them when it has.


First published on February 15, 2012 at 12:00 am


Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/12046/1210197-298.stm#ixzz1mSL2DZQL

 

[pinktoes]

Everyone does understand that there is a possibility that some of Sandusky's children are themselves confused; might have been molested by him (or someone else, given their unsettled lives prior to their foster care placement with Sandusky); and might be child molesters themselves. Right? We do know that being molested as a child puts one at higher risk to become a molester--right?

SO, I have serious reservations about trusting any child of Sandusky's to monitor his grandchildren's visits with him. Seriously, why take that chance?

 

[pinktoes]

The other legal risk to Sandusky in having visits with his grandchildren could arise if, as a result of visits now, a grandchild accuses him of a PAST molestation.

That could arise through various ways. If he did molest them in the past, a visit now triggers a suppressed memory of that and the child reports it. If he did molest them in the past, and the child is consciously aware of it, and has learned of the current charges against him, a visit might stir up feelings about the past and that child might now feel courageous enough or supported enough to report it.

Or, a grandchild who has been experiencing the psychological effects of having been in the grooming stage with him, might be triggered by a visit to report that.

Visitation now is going to have some tension involved. These children have heard things about the charges against g'pa (depending on their age). Or had an explanation (one hopes) about why they haven't been able to see him. Perhaps their parents will exhibit realistic tension around the visit.

And, just maybe, for those of you who cannot make that deduction short of a judge telling you it is true, maybe he is, in fact, a child molester whose usual access to children has been cut off. And so, when he gets a child on his lap, he might treat him differently than he has in the past. Sexually. In a subtle or not so subtle way. Again, I do not trust his grown children to be aware of what's going on--if they were themselves victims.

It might be helpful to read up on the cycle of abuse.

Some of the disagreement here is, I think, because we're talking about 2 different things: (1) Sandusky's legal rights while he awaits a trial; vs (2) the responsibility of adults to err on the side of caution in protecting the interests of children.

If I were the guardian ad litem, obviously I would've made a different recommendation to the judge. It's a professional judgment call, and subject to variance.

It might be helpful to review the Costa-Sandusky interview to see just how confused this man sounded. ('Confused' is being generous.)

 

[believe09]

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).

BBM- :floorlaugh:

It was nice to have a little levity in this horrific situation.

 

[Belinda]

I personally believe he is guilty of the charges against him. Too much smoke, not to have a fire. I believe all steps need to be taken to immediately protect all children from him. How many more children will he have the opportunity to molest before trial? I would rather err on the side of protecting the children, then protecting the rights of a probable serial molester.

 

[ThoughtFox]

In all seriousness, what risk is there? Presumably the parents will prevent anything from happening, and they can say no. There has no suggestion that Sandusky's children and their spouses sat around and said, **Let's have kids so Pops can molest them.**

If he was there with them, his answer might very well be yes.

What risk is there? Um, the risk that some of his adopted kids were not molested, and therefore don't believe he is dangerous. Half of them may be in denial, or feel obligated by family ties or merely by the fact that Jerry gave them a roof over their heads.

Therefore his kids might get too relaxed, trust him too much - as well as Grandma - and before you know it Grandma is checked out and "not listening" again as Grandpa is down in the basement molesting one of the grandchildren.

Let's not be so naive as to think this scenario couldn't happen. It happens every day in this country, and that's how the cycle of abuse continues.

Nobody wants to read a news story next year about how his adopted children "thought they could trust Grandpa Jerry" so they left innocent grandchildren in his care. No one wants to read about more victims.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Nobody wants to read a news story next year about how his adopted children "thought they could trust Grandpa Jerry" so they left innocent grandchildren in his care. No one wants to read about more victims.

The parents have said that he will not be alone with them.

 

[Belinda]

The parents have said that he will not be alone with them.

BBM - I hope we can trust that. Just because they said it doesn't mean they will do it. There is no telling whether they have been molested themselves or what they really think of the situation. I don't believe it should be left up to them to hopefully follow that directive. Will we know if they don't? I doubt it.

 

[Concerned Papa]

~Snipped~

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"?

If he was there with them, his answer might very well be yes.

Wonder if the judge is aware that Jer's lawyer said the following, explaining Grandpa Jer being in the shower with childern?:

Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills. Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body.

http://deadspin.com/5868312/one-of-...o-teach-troubled-youth-how-to-shower-properly

Wonder if the judge saw Jer's stumbling, bumbling answer to this question from Bob Costas?:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIdHelB_Qi8&feature=endscreen&NR=1"]Disturbing...Sandusky Hesitates Answering "ARE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO YOUNG BOYS?" - YouTube[/ame]

Wonder if the judge ever saw this video?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz346ZF0YLM"]Jerry Sandusky's Method - YouTube[/ame]

Think his answer might still be yes?

 

[Velouria]

The other legal risk to Sandusky in having visits with his grandchildren could arise if, as a result of visits now, a grandchild accuses him of a PAST molestation.

That could arise through various ways. If he did molest them in the past, a visit now triggers a suppressed memory of that and the child reports it. If he did molest them in the past, and the child is consciously aware of it, and has learned of the current charges against him, a visit might stir up feelings about the past and that child might now feel courageous enough or supported enough to report it.

Or, a grandchild who has been experiencing the psychological effects of having been in the grooming stage with him, might be triggered by a visit to report that.

Visitation now is going to have some tension involved. These children have heard things about the charges against g'pa (depending on their age). Or had an explanation (one hopes) about why they haven't been able to see him. Perhaps their parents will exhibit realistic tension around the visit.

And, just maybe, for those of you who cannot make that deduction short of a judge telling you it is true, maybe he is, in fact, a child molester whose usual access to children has been cut off. And so, when he gets a child on his lap, he might treat him differently than he has in the past. Sexually. In a subtle or not so subtle way. Again, I do not trust his grown children to be aware of what's going on--if they were themselves victims.

It might be helpful to read up on the cycle of abuse.

Some of the disagreement here is, I think, because we're talking about 2 different things: (1) Sandusky's legal rights while he awaits a trial; vs (2) the responsibility of adults to err on the side of caution in protecting the interests of children.

If I were the guardian ad litem, obviously I would've made a different recommendation to the judge. It's a professional judgment call, and subject to variance.

It might be helpful to review the Costa-Sandusky interview to see just how confused this man sounded. ('Confused' is being generous.)

Good post, pinktoes.

I'm deeply concerned that if Grandpa Jer did in fact molest his grandchildren, these visits may present an opportunity for him to reinforce the abuser's "code of silence" through subtle threats, bribes, guilt, and so forth. Supervised visitation wouldn't necessarily prevent him from using this sort of influence on a child victim, particularly one with an emotional tie to the alleged perp.

 

[StellarsJay]

Schultz is hoping to have his perjury charges dismissed, and I think they might be, although I think of the villians here he, not Paterno, is Number 2.

What is the obligation to report a child abuse allegation for Schultz, not as an academic, but as responsible for the campus police? If someone told a campus officer the same story, what would the officer's obligation become, and why should Schultz not have the same responsibility? Aren't police held to a higher responsibility?

Is there a law that says that an accusation of abuse made to police MUST be recorded and investigated to some minimal point? Was there one in 2002?
If not, there should be one and it should also stipulate that an outside agency has to sign off on the investigation having been done. Let the kid who came forward first pick a name for it.

If he beats the perjury charge by claiming he took it on himself to judge the allegation, or failed to understand it, then I hope there are other legal sanctions waiting.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/former_penn_state_vice_preside.html

 

[BigCat]

Schultz is hoping to have his perjury charges dismissed, and I think they might be, although I think of the villians here he, not Paterno, is Number 2.

What is the obligation to report a child abuse allegation for Schultz, not as an academic, but as responsible for the campus police? If someone told a campus officer the same story, what would the officer's obligation become, and why should Schultz not have the same responsibility? Aren't police held to a higher responsibility?

Is there a law that says that an accusation of abuse made to police MUST be recorded and investigated to some minimal point? Was there one in 2002?
If not, there should be one and it should also stipulate that an outside agency has to sign off on the investigation having been done. Let the kid who came forward first pick a name for it.

If he beats the perjury charge by claiming he took it on himself to judge the allegation, or failed to understand it, then I hope there are other legal sanctions waiting.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/former_penn_state_vice_preside.html

Schultz is not a police officer. He's never been one. I'm sure his argument would be that he never considered himself in charge of the police force. On that point, I think he's right. If someone were breaking into the home of McQueary or Paterno or Curley, they wouldn't call Schultz. They would call a cop with a badge and gun. That's the proper way to report a crime. It's not complicated.

As for an investigation, Schultz testified he thought a investigation occurred. When asked who conducted the investigation, he said he wasn't sure.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Schultz is not a police officer. He's never been one. I'm sure his argument would be that he never considered himself in charge of the police force. On that point, I think he's right. If someone were breaking into the home of McQueary or Paterno or Curley, they wouldn't call Schultz. They would call a cop with a badge and gun. That's the proper way to report a crime. It's not complicated.

As for an investigation, Schultz testified he thought a investigation occurred. When asked who conducted the investigation, he said he wasn't sure.

He said that he supervised the police and the police, Harmon agreed with him.

Page 215 of the preliminary hearing transcript is key.

 

[Pensfan]

Children of convicted murderers must think the same thing, even if they know their parent did it (even to the other parent).

Sometimes after children are sent to the home of a POI for a horrific crime, the POI does something consistent with his disturbed personality. Josh Powell chopped up his kids with an ax and then set them on fire. A judge thought it would be safe for Josh to have home visits because the visit would be supervised.

With defenseless individuals, authorities should err on the side of caution.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Sometimes after children are sent to the home of a POI for a horrific crime, the POI does something consistent with his disturbed personality. Josh Powell chopped up his kids with an ax and then set them on fire. A judge thought it would be safe for Josh to have home visits because the visit would be supervised.

With defenseless individuals, authorities should err on the side of caution.

No evidence of that here; further, it is unlikely that Sandusky ever killed anyone.