<p>Local English teacher today has been accused of having sex with 3 high school girls. His bail was set at $1m. Interesting difference.</p>
<p>Bail is not supposed to be punishment. It is supposed to prevent flight, primarily.</p>
<p>In the “just when things couldn’t get more stomach churning department”, Dorothy Sandusky has spoken to CNN and says she just can’t understand why these young men would make accusations, but they are absolutely false and no child was harmed in her house. And she believes in her husband’s absolute innocence.</p>
<p>Wait. Did Sandusky contact victims AFTER the investigation had already begun? I guess I thought he did that when he realized that he was going to be investigated. Wow. What an arrogant $%#*&.</p>
<p>He should also be considered a danger to the public. How many victims, over how many years, have come forward so far ? And he’s had the audacity to contact his victims. He’s accused of being a serial pedophile and rapist.</p>
<p>EPTR:</p>
<p>[Open</a> Channel - Sandusky’s dinner with alleged victims raises new legal questions](<a href=“http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/05/9229405-sanduskys-dinner-with-alleged-victims-raises-new-legal-questions]Open”>http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/05/9229405-sanduskys-dinner-with-alleged-victims-raises-new-legal-questions)</p>
<p>One thing that’s missing from the story, so far, is whether there are a lot of other boys who will come forward and say they had a relationship with Sandusky that wasn’t sexual. If there are, it will help his case. If there aren’t, then he’d better plead.</p>
<p>I would expect there to be many boys who got lots of attention, but ultimately rejected his advances. And undoubtedly, there must have been some he found more appealing than others.</p>
<p>If he’s really going to make a defense of innocence, it will most likely be the following:
- I had close relationships with lots of boys, and here are a bunch of them to testify that there was nothing sexual about it.
- The accusers have an ulterior motive, and are lying.
Since the accusers are, apparently, troubled youth or formerly troubled youth, they may be quite vulnerable to cross-examination–they may have criminal records, or drug problems, etc. - If even one of the accusers appears to be testifying falsely, that will cast doubt on all of them.</p>
<p>“One thing that’s missing from the story, so far, is whether there are a lot of other boys who will come forward and say they had a relationship with Sandusky that wasn’t sexual. If there are, it will help his case.”</p>
<p>This reminds me of Herman Cain and a joke, naming women he knew who did not accuse him of sexual harassment. That kind of defense does not come across as credible, imo.</p>
<p>“He should also be considered a danger to the public. How many victims, over how many years, have come forward so far ? And he’s had the audacity to contact his victims. He’s accused of being a serial pedophile and rapist.”</p>
<p>To be fair (and it’s hard), if you felt falsely accused, wouldn’t you at least want to contact the so-called victims and ask “Why are you doing this to me?”</p>
<p>(I think he’s guilty, and I think Paterno & Co. are part of a big coverup, much bigger than is in the news so far, but we’ll see…(or we won’t)…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like OhioMom, I don’t find this remotely persuasive. If he has done everything he is accused of, I would expect that he would have groomed and flattered some boys, but not followed through with sexual advances for one reason or another. So I don’t care if some of those boys turn up. I don’t expect Sandusky to have molested every boy he knew.</p>
<p>I agree Cardinal, there was a young man interviewed early in the case who said he had been in a car with Sandusky who placed his hand on his thigh, he indicated all the kids knew Jerry did this. He was uncomfortable with it and apparently resisted future contact. I suspect Sandusky pushed with the most vulnerable of the boys, the ones he can now claim were too troubled to now be believed. GRRR</p>
<p>And Dottie defending him as completely innocent, and claiming, no boys ever had dinner in the basement, they always had meals with the family. How nice, how bout your husband’s admission about showering with and horsing around with young boys???</p>
<p>
I think he probably has, but if he hasn’t, what would his defense look like? He’s got to attack the credibility of the accusers–and the best way to do that, it seems to me, is to bring out people who had a different experience, and then suggest some reason the accusers might be lying.</p>
<p>but then there’s the McQueary testimony, that has to be damning</p>
<p>The prosecutors don’t seem to have the victim McQueary saw–and Sandusky’s lawyer said that he does, and the person will say that nothing sexual was going on. The jury may have trouble figuring out what to make of that.</p>
<p>Remember, if this goes to trial, the jury will only see the evidence that is presented in court–evidence the court rules is admissible. When the prosecution has to come up with witnesses who will testify in open court and stand up to cross-examination, a case can look very different than it does when it’s only in the media. (This is something people didn’t really get about the OJ Simpson case.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I second that GRRR. And hopefully the jury, if there ever is one, will see that he fits the pattern of a pedophile in this regard. I mean, honestly, if the accusations are true, he is textbook. The fact that some kids were victimized and others were not only means that some were more vulnerable than others. That’s what the grooming process is all about and Sandunsky seems to have had it down.</p>
<p>In this case, there’s so much coming out that it seems highly unlikely that Sandusky could be innocent. But I can’t help think about what it would be like to be falsely accused of something like this. There are lots of people who work with kids, and who like to be around kids. I don’t think they are all pedophiles–but any of them could be wrecked by an accusation like this, even if it isn’t proven to be true. If Sandusky is guilty–and he probably is–I think what he did also makes life harder for all those genuinely good people who work with kids.</p>
<p>I really don’t think that most of us who love kids and work with them have much to fear. I have never showered with any child–not even my own. I would not blow on or rub stomachs of kids either, nor would I be naked, wrestle, or “horse around” with them in any form. We also do not shower kids with inordinate gifts and special attention to “groom them” or for other purposes.</p>
<p>Most people I know who work with and love kids do NOT have them alone with them and are fine being in groups with them rather than insisting on sleepovers and lots of one-on-one time, even for mentoring. </p>
<p>None of the many people I know who love and work with or volunteer with kids have voiced any fears about their actions with kids being misinterpreted.</p>
<p>
Then you’ve never had to take the Boy Scouts’ Youth Protection Training, or been part of a church committee that had to install windows in all Sunday School classroom doors. And maybe you’ve been fortunate enough not to know anybody whose words or actions were misinterpreted. I’m not saying that any of these precautions are unnecessary. I just hate it that they are necessary.</p>