Jerry Sandusky’s adopted son arrested for sexually assaulting a child
- Thread starter NC2017
- Start date
How much will Lubert pay to settle this case?
ziegler has already created a new website - framing Jeffrey
This is how the cabal is further silencing anyone who defends Jerry!
Incredibly sad. It's hard not to wonder if something happened during childhood at his adopted father's hands that led to this kind of terrible behavior in his adult life.
How much do you want to bet this gets more air time than Larry Nassar?
So, how long until Ziegler starts exposing the identities of the victims and start trashing them?
Has Jeff ever commented on Matt's allegations? Did Matt ever say Jeff may have been abused?
Who cares. Once you become a perpetrator, your status as a victim is irrelevant. Would you really feel differently about Sandusky if you found out he was molested as a child?
It sounds bad, but "sexually assaulting a child" makes it sound worse than it was. Apparently, he was arrested for sending creepy texts to his girlfriend's daughter, who I would guess is somewhere around 16 or 17 by using context clues. Creepy? Yes. "Sexually assaulting a child" is how it will play in the headlines, but that is not the most accurate description.
Perfect timing. Takes the scrutiny off MSU and Baylor and back on the "cultists" inhabiting Happy Valley. The Sandusky curse shall forever be our cross to bear. 
On his site, Ziegler says Matt came home from the first day of the trial and told the entire Sandusky family, “I could get up on the stand and lie just like that.” Ziegler reiterated to me that Matt unequivocally, “told the family of his plan.” Jeff Sandusky, Matt’s older brother and a man who believes Jerry never molested anyone, told me this is untrue. “Why would he tell us that?” he said. “That makes no sense. He’d have lost his credibility and we could have totally nailed him. No, he didn’t say that.”
http://www.jeffpearlman.com/on-matt-sandusky-and-the-worst-guy-ive-ever-dealt-with/
Yes. It wouldn't make him innocent, but I would feel differently. That's what humans do.
No way will that happen. He will use this as proof that JS is innocent - see no text messages.......
edit - I guess we can't use initials JS anymore ........
I was just about to say the same thing. Not trying to downplay anything but that headline is a bit misleading. He was living with his gf and her daughter and apparently he was trying to get the daughter to send nude pics. I have no idea how old the daughter is but I'm guessing she's in her teens.
I actually just saw the usa today alert pop up on my phone with the same headline.
Sounds bad? He's trying to get naked photos of a minor and was charged with abusing a 2nd kid. That's far beyond, "sounds bad."
Trying to understand any potential reason why a human being would do something like that to a child doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be punished for what he did. If what's being alleged is true, then there's no excuse and I hope he's prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.
And, for what it's worth, I think there's a very strong possibility of that, and it might explain why all of the trial victims' childhood school pictures looked an awful lot like Jerry did when he was about their age. It doesn't make me feel any differently about his guilt, but it does give somewhat of a reason - however abhorrent - for such a senseless act.
I see half this board hasn't learned anything in the last 5 years. For the record his "victims" were between the ages of 11 and 16 according to the docket. They include IDSI (i.e. rape).
I don't think "charged with abusing a 2nd kid" is accurate, either. From what I can gather, he is accused of sending creepy texts to the victim's sister years ago. Unless you are seeing a charge of abusing a 2nd kid that wasn't in the police report.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I didn't read the Police Report, and didn't see one in the link provided. The WKRN and "We Are Central PA" reports include this statement,
"According to the criminal complaint a second child was also abused dating back to 2013."
Well perhaps the author of the article should have included that information. What they wrote in the headline and what was contained in the article didn't really line up.
The info you provided certainly provides context...in a yahoo article just released it seems like most of the charges are for soliciting IDSI, etc. not the acts themselves.
Here are the charges according to yahoo:
"The charges include criminal solicitation of statutory sexual assault by a person 11 years older, criminal solicitation of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse of a person less than 16 years old, two counts of criminal solicitation of photograph or film depicted on the computer of a sex act knowingly involving a child, six counts of communicating with a minor – sexual abuse and two counts of criminal solicitation of child pornography, all felonies, and two misdemeanor counts of corruption of minors."
Sounds like he is done. There's hard evidence via the texts.
Are people REALLY trying to whitewash this? Just stop, its embarrassing.
And here I thought this was all taken care of because Penn State missed bowl games in 2012 and 2013.
The charges are found here.
And you can find the definitions here.
He is charged with EDIT: Correction, it was Solicitation of statutory sexual assault, a Felony in the 1st degree, which is defined as the following:
§ 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault.
(a) Felony of the second degree.--Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant to whom the person is not married who is under the age of 16 years and that person is either:
(1) four years older but less than eight years older than the complainant; or
(2) eight years older but less than 11 years older than the complainant.
(b) Felony of the first degree.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is 11 or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.
(Mar. 31, 1995, 1st Sp.Sess., P.L.985, No.10, eff. 60 days; Dec. 20, 2011, P.L.446, No.111, eff. 60 days)
So no, it isn't just an allegation of creepy texts.
And you can find the definitions here.
He is charged with EDIT: Correction, it was Solicitation of statutory sexual assault, a Felony in the 1st degree, which is defined as the following:
§ 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault.
(a) Felony of the second degree.--Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant to whom the person is not married who is under the age of 16 years and that person is either:
(1) four years older but less than eight years older than the complainant; or
(2) eight years older but less than 11 years older than the complainant.
(b) Felony of the first degree.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is 11 or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.
(Mar. 31, 1995, 1st Sp.Sess., P.L.985, No.10, eff. 60 days; Dec. 20, 2011, P.L.446, No.111, eff. 60 days)
So no, it isn't just an allegation of creepy texts.
You don't think thats bad? Typical sandusky scumbag.
