<p>MD Mom, I would just like to repost a link from post #100, way back when. This is a Sports Illustrated article from 1999 (that’s 13 years ago, ok, not 1950, not 1970, but also not last week) wow… just noticed it was co-authored by Don Yaeger</p>
<p>This article very closely describes many of the characteristics of Sandusky’s technique.
It is nothing new.</p>
<p>**Every Parent’s Nightmare
The child molester has found a home in the world of youth sports, where as a coach he can gain the trust and loyalty of kids—and then prey on them **</p>
<p>MD mom,
You bring up a very important point. Children may find the behavior confusing but may be so influenced by the perpetrator that they do not report or object at the time. I have a person close to me who was abused as a little boy. The situation was very similar to what the Sandusky victims suffered. This victim was warned that if he told anyone his family would be killed. And yet, the boy returned to this man’s house again and again. When I was told about this (and this was in the 60"s by the way), the victim said that he could not explain why he would keep going back there. He doesn’t need to explain. These things are complex and unless you, yourself, have walked in those shoes, it is hard to understand. That was one of the issues that I worried about with this trial. People wondered why these boys would continue to go back to that house. It is very common for that to happen and is not an indication of the perpetrator’s innocence.</p>
<p>The guy who did the Child Lures program got a lot of publicity. I think his name was Jim Wooden or Wooten, but he was the guy on Oprah who went up to the kids at the playground with the leash and a picture of a puppy. He also covered pedophiles in his lecture series. I saw him twice when DD was about 2, so we are going on 20 years. Scary stuff.</p>
<p>EPTR, yes, I am all over the place because I am on a frontline having to make sure these things don’t happen and yet, that people are not falsely accused.</p>
<p>No, I am not saying if someone is accused, that person should never be around kids again, but that person had better be very very careful. As it is, those of us around children are going to have to be very careful. I can tell you, that in my case, if there are any such aspersions even sensed by me, that would be it. I would stay very far away—I can afford to do so. I would also stomp out any such accusations with all I have. But that would be it for me. It may be anyways if the backlash is too much. It’s a shame because there is an acute shortage of those who want to deal with at risk children. Especially those from families with no money, and there is little money out there to pay anyone much to work with them. </p>
<p>That’ s why I don’t get this Second Mile Charity.</p>
<p>Cptof the house,
If you are in a position where you are responsible for the hiring of people or are directly responsible for children’s welfare, it might be a good idea to get some training about sexual abuse. Not only that, your employees or volunteers should all be CORI checked to see if they have any record of offenses. That is the minimum that should be done. Employees and volunteers should also be trained in keeping children safe and keeping themselves above suspicion, ie: respecting boundaries, etc. Saying that an adult should never be alone with a child is not sensible or even effective at preventing abuse. A pedophile will find a way to be alone with a child despite your efforts. They work it likes its their job.</p>
<p>I agree…I find this part of the sordid story to be the most troubling. This was AFTER the 1998 incident, AFTER the 2001 incident…this man was out and about bringing young boys into his home, abusing them…and no one was stopping him. That mother was powerless.</p>
<p>I am trained and certified up the whazoo, and background checked regularly, and re trained as well. In several venues. Very little guidance on these matters and many of the line items are things that are disregarded. </p>
<p>One of the main things that is raised repeatedly, is that you do not give candy to kids. My first assignment after training was to give candy to kids. Huh? And it goes on like that. </p>
<p>Mrs S has stated under oath that she heard nothing in the ways of screams and noises and even said that she would have since the basement is not soundproofed. There was a possibility of complicity here, and S’s attorneys had her consult with criminal attorneys to cover that base, but apparently there was not any evidence that can prove she knew of anything. The closest to that is one of the victims said that she was upstairs and he thought she might have heard. </p>
<p>I don’t think she heard or saw anything direct. Where I have the problem is that she had to have seen and heard a lot of indirect things. SHe had to know that in 1997 the police were called in a sitution. There is no way that she would not have heard or known of the buzz of innuendo. If your significant other was getting that kind of talk around him, would you not demand that lone contact with children stop and HE take precautions about being alone with children, even if you did not believe that he was abusing, molesting, raping them? Not just your SO, but your colleague, co coach, son, uncle, father , brother, teacher, etc. I would. I certainly would not allow those kids to have sleepovers at the house when that sort of cloud was forming. That is where I don’t understand Mrs Sandusky. Also, what does she truly think now, after hearing the evidence.</p>
<p>Silpat,
I’m sorry that you had so much to endure while growing up.</p>
<p>I will say, I agree with those that think she knew, at least on some level. She claims to have not heard the screaming in the basement. That seems impossible to me. The other thing that is indicative is the time that she walked in on her H with a child in a bathroom and asked “what is going on in there?”. That question seems to me to come from someone looking for reassurance that nothing strange is going on. If my H was in a bathroom with a child, I wouldn’t ask that question because I have no reason for suspicion. It seems to me that Dottie at least had suspicion and was confronted, at that moment, with evidence. And she wanted S to explain it away so that she wouldn’t have to deal with the reality of it.</p>
<p>I think she knew and knows what he is. What we don’t know is why she stayed silent. Perhaps she was threatened by him. We don’t know. I have a feeling we will find out. Perhaps now that he is in prison, his hold on her will loosen and she will find her voice, too.</p>
<p>Goingmyway, in that particular case with Matt Sandusky, I had read things that were directly contradictory to what the mother said. He had problems before he ever met Jerry S. He was a troubled boy and his family had problems too. Most of those boys were in that situation which made them easy prey for S. To me, that was an additional insult upon injury. These kids were high risk, had a lot of things going against them already. To pile breach of trust, molestation on top of that is just heart wrenching to me. I would like to see how “Sandusky’s boys” as a group have been faring next to a control group of kids from that area who were not one of those chosen.</p>
<p>If Penn St. wants to prove to the world that they plan on changing the mentality of their football program, they need to shut down the football program. For how long? For as many years as they allowed Sandusky to set foot on to their campus after the first whispers of his pedophilia were heard.</p>
<p>For starters:</p>
<p>Close down the Second Mile</p>
<p>Shut down the Penn St. football program</p>
<p>Financially pay the abused for their pain and suffering. It won’t heal them, but it will be an admission to the public of their culpability in turning a blind eye and allowing a pedophilia to continue to prey on the boys in their own community.</p>
<p>With regard to how this will affect Penn State in admissions, it personally bothers me. It was and has been a school on my kids lists. I don’t think it will be. It was high on my youngest’s list and has fallen for him. The whole thing leaves a very bad feeling with me. </p>
<p>Penn State will have to financially pay the abused. I think they are already making moves for some way to expeditiously address the victims. There will be civil suits galore. </p>
<p>Second MIle should be closed. I don’t see why the football program should be shut down. And I am no football fan in the least.</p>
<p>cpt,
One can’t demand that another stay away from children if that person has not been found guilty of something. Not indefinitely anyway. </p>
<p>If you have found that your training is insufficient, you should address that issue with those in charge of it. I know in our school system they provided an inservice with DSS on this very issue.</p>
<p>Being given contradictory information is not good for you or the children you serve. It seems that you are ernest in your desire to do things right and in the best interest of the kids and the employees. It’s too bad that your not getting that support. You shouldn’t be left to figure this out on your own.</p>
<p>I see ZERO reason for the football program to close. What will that accomplish? Nothing. You may want to go through and get rid of people who knew and said nothing, but shutting down the football program would accomplish nothing. </p>
<p>I was abused by the commissioner of my sports league. Even though he never went to jail for what he did, he and the people who knew about what happened were forced out of the organization. I would never have wanted the entire program shut down because of the mistakes of some. You prune the tree of dead branches, you don’t chop down the whole thing.</p>
<p>I agree. What’s the point of shutting it down. It wasn’t the players or the fans that committed a crime. It would be unfair to all of PSU to do that. Obviously, some people need to go and there needs to be a complete overhaul of the teams management and persona. But shutting it down makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>PSU was my Ds first choice two years ago when she was applying to schools. She ended up falling in love with another choice in the end, though. looking back, it is such a relief to me that she didn’t go there. It is a wonderful school in many ways but this whole scandal would have tainted her experience, IMO.</p>
<p>One explanation for Dottie Sandusky’s behavior (or lack thereof) is that she was herself sexually abused as a child. </p>
<p>She might be attracted to a man with pedophiliac sexual energy because she was conditioned to respond to it at a young age. She might also be subject to ‘blanking out,’ disbelief, paralysis, and denial when confronted with actual evidence, also because that’s how she dealt with it as a child.</p>
<p>It’s very hard to overcome the damage when one has been sexually abused, and this how these things play out over generations. Who knows for sure if this is her story, but it seems plausible to me.</p>
<p>There is a plan for the Second Miles’s assets and programs to be transferred to a religious charity in Texas that serves at risk youths. I would guess that there would have to be some way for victims to still sue and recover damages from the Second Mile even if the transfer goes through.</p>
<p>I also don’t see a reason to shut down the football program. Almost the entire coaching staff was let go, with just a couple of exceptions. The money generated by the program covers the expenses (including scholarships for student athletes) of nearly all the other sports programs. it would be career ending for hundreds of fencers, gymnasts, runners, swimmers, including a number of Olympic hopefuls.</p>