articles:
- Alleged Victim In Sandusky Case Leaves High School Due To Bullying
- Neighboring county entangled in scandal
- Sandusky abuse claims date back to 1994, grand jury says
- Children's Bones Identified at Canada's Oldest Indian Residential School
Alleged Victim In Sandusky Case Leaves High School Due To Bullying Laura Hibbard 11/21/11
The first known alleged victim in the Jerry Sandusky case, known as "Victim One" was forced to leave his school because of an onslaught of bullying, The Patriot-News reports.
Mike Gillum, psychologist for the family, told the news source that officials at Central Mountain High School didn't step in and provide guidance to the boy's classmates, who began to blame Joe Paterno's firing on the 17-year-old.
Victim One testified he was forced into multiple sex acts between 2006 and 2008. During that time, Sandusky was also assisting the high school with their varsity football program, the report states.
Gillum told The Patriot News that name-calling and verbal threats at the school, which is located about 30 miles northeast of Pennsylvania State University, became too much for the boy to bear.
The Centre Daily Times wrote the 23-page report by a state grand jury investigation alleges that Sandusky molested at least eight boys over a 15-year period, beginning with "Victim 1."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/alleged-victim-in-sandusky-case-leaves-school-due-to-bullying_n_1105867.html
Neighboring county entangled in scandal
By Curtis Tate — McClatchy Newspapers Nov 21, 2011
LOCK HAVEN — While most of the attention in the Penn State child sex abuse scandal has focused on State College, the impact extends farther north, where some of the alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky still live....
But from one end of the county to the other, everyone’s talking about what happened at Central Mountain High School in Mill Hall, where Sandusky, the former Penn State defensive coordinator, volunteered as a football coach for three years.
A 23-page report by a state grand jury investigating allegations that Sandusky molested at least eight boys over a 15-year period begins with “Victim 1.” Victim 1 testified that he met Sandusky as a participant in The Second Mile, a charity Sandusky founded in 1977 to help underprivileged and at-risk youth throughout Pennsylvania.
Victim 1, who was 11 or 12 when he first met Sandusky, testified that Sandusky cultivated a relationship with him, buying him gifts, taking him to restaurants and inviting him to sleep over in his basement....
“Victim 1 did not want to engage in sexual conduct with Sandusky and knew it was wrong,” the grand jury report said. Though this discomfort led Victim 1 to eventually break off contact with Sandusky, the report said, Sandusky persisted. An agent for the state Attorney General’s Office testified that there were 61 phone calls from Sandusky’s home phone to Victim 1’s home phone between January 2008 and July 2009.
The grand jury report said that Victim 1 ceased contact with Sandusky when he was a freshman at Central Mountain, where as a volunteer coach, Sandusky had “unfettered access.”
Sandusky would routinely call Victim 1 out of class to meet with him in a conference room, the grand jury report said, and no one monitored these visits. Steven Turchetta, an assistant principal at the school, told the grand jury that Sandusky was “controlling” in the mentoring relationships he established with Second Mile participants and called some of Sandusky’s behavior “suspicious.”
Turchetta learned of the sexual abuse allegations when Victim 1’s mother called the school to report it. School district officials subsequently barred Sandusky from school property and reported the allegations to authorities, as required by law....
Victim 1 has been forced to leave the school because of bullying, the Patriot-News of Harrisburg reported Sunday. Classmates were blaming him for the firing of Penn State head coach Joe Paterno, the newspaper reported.
http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/21/2994411/neighboring-county-entangled-in.html
Sandusky abuse claims date back to 1994, grand jury says
By the CNN Wire Staff November 8, 2011
(CNN) -- The child sex investigation against retired Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky began in 2008 with the first report of allegations to law enforcement. But allegations and eyewitness accounts, some known to university officials, date back as far as 1994.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/justice/pennsylvania-coach-abuse-timeline/
Children's Bones Identified at Canada's Oldest Indian Residential School: 28/11/11
The Protect Your Children Foundation in collaboration with Vatican Crimes Exposed Organization is honored to have travelled to Brantford, Ontario (Canada) to document these monumental breaking news:
Archaeological digs at the Anglican church's Indian residential school in Brantford have uncovered children's bones and other evidence of mass murder.
The dig is organized by sovereign Mohawk elders and Kevin Annett of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (http://www.itccs.org).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLEcnBy6V6M
Children’s Bones Identified at Canada’s Oldest Indian Residential School
Posted on November 28, 2011 by itccs
A child’s remains and other human bones have been identified at Canada’s oldest Indian residential school in Brantford, Ontario:
Archaeological surveys and test digs authorized by we, elders of the Kanien’keha:ka Nation, have been conducted at the former Mohawk Institute Indian residential school since October 1.
This past week, while on the grounds of the school, our researchers along with Kevin Annett -Rawennatshani, who acts with our approval, have unearthed what has been described as human remains. One bone among sixteen uncovered has been identified, through preliminary visual examination by a competent archaeologist, as that of a young child. This bone sample is described by the same archaeologist as “definitely human”.
A test dig in a twenty square foot area on grounds adjoining the former Mohawk Institute have revealed a considerable number of bones, as well as buttons which have been confirmed to be part of the children’s school uniforms. Large deposits of coal were also found associated with these remains, all at a depth of barely two feet. Several of the bones have also been cut up, suggesting that the bodies may have been deliberately dismembered, while other bones were broken.
http://www.itccs.org
Showing posts with label victim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label victim. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, August 23, 2010
Friedmans case – Capturing the Friedmans - the victims perspective
many of the quotes in this section come from:
Capturing the Friedmans: Annotated Bibliography http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/bib.html
describes crimes
Many viewers leave the theater believing that they have seen an objective documentary presented by a director who entrusted audiences to draw their own conclusions on Arnold Friedman’s and Jesse Friedman’s guilt. A careful review of the original evidence, however, shows that the case against the Friedmans was much stronger than the film revealed.
Geraldo Rivera’s interview with Jesse Friedman “Busting the Kiddie Porn Underground” February 23, 1989 — Geraldo!
Jesse’s attorney, Peter Panera, is interviewed. He tells how he and Jesse made a special trip to Wisconsin to visit Arnold Friedman in prison to convince him to reveal where he had hidden the photos and videos of the children. Arnold refused to reveal what he had done with them, despite the fact that it would have helped gain lenacy for his son. Jesse’s mother Ms. Friedman also appears on the show.
Frances Galasso, the detective-sergeant who was in charge of the Friedman case, describes Jesse’s lack of remorse for his victims and describes how he and his brother harassed some of the victims’ parents at court proceedings. She says that Jesse told the grandfather of one victim: “Well maybe we are suffering now, but with what we’ve done to your children, they’ll suffer for the rest of their lives.”
Geraldo Rivera’s interview with Jesse Friedman http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/geraldo.html
Geraldo: “How many kids, Jesse, did you and your father actually physically abuse in your home?” Jesse: (long sigh, appears to be mentally counting) “I guess 17.”….
Geraldo: “What did you do to the children?” Jesse: “What did I do to the children? I fondled them. I was forced to pose in 100's of photos for my father in all sorts of sexual positions with the kids and the kids likewise with myself.
The Secret Life of Arnold Friedman By Alvin E. Bessent – Newsday — LI., NY May 28, 1989 http://web.archive.org/web/20060901203550/www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-friedman052889,0,1599081.story
Bessent reports on the victims’ fear of the Friedmans:
“As the abuse escalated so did the threats. Police said the children were extensively videotaped and photographed. No pictures of the children have been recovered. But police said Arnold Friedman told the children he would send pornographic pictures of them to magazines and tell the publishers to print their names if they told what was going on. He threatened to burn their houses down. He reportedly said he would kill their parents. . . . Some of the children who testified before the grand juries received threatening telephone calls warning them not to cooperate with police.” “Some of them still wet their beds, take baseball bats to bed with them or are unable to sleep.” http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/bib.html
State of New York v. Arnold Friedman.
Motion for order requiring return of property seized from 17 Picadilly Road, Great Neck, Nassau County, New York, seized pursuant to search warrant of November 25, 1987. Motion #C-427, Indictment #67104 & 67430.
September 14, 1990.
Judge Abbey L. Boklan approved Arnold Friedmans’ request for the return of all property seized at the Friedman home with the exception of pornographic materials listed in this document. Materials include such items as: 5 pornographic movies, assorted order forms for pornography, assorted pornographic magazine cutouts, 2 partially nude photos of children, 3 sheets advertising homosexuality with boys, 6 photos of naked people, 3 battery operated sex aids, 1 hypodermic needle, 9 pornographic computer games (with descriptions), list of names and phone numbers of 9 victims, 2 registration sheets with names of victims.
The People of the State of New York , Respondent, v. Ross G., Appellant 163 A.D.2d 529; 558 N.Y.S.2d 603; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8786 June 28, 1990
The Supreme Court of New York responds affirmatively to an appeal by Ross Goldstein who asks the state to reduce his sentence to the terms recommended and agreed to by the prosecution. Although he was not mentioned in the film, Mr. Goldstein was a third defendant who was arrested along with Arnold and Jesse Friedman. According to this document, Goldstein, a former friend of Jesse’s who was between 15 and 16 years old when he committed the crimes. He later became repulsed by the abuse, and six months before the Friedmans were arrested, Goldstein disassociated himself from Jesse Friedman and his activities. Goldstein, now age 19, confessed to the crimes and agreed to testify against both Arnold and Jesse Friedman in exchange for leniency.
In Their Own Words: Jesse’s Victims Speak Out http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/vict.html
Victims break their silence Victor Manuel Ramos — Newsday — LI., NY February 29, 2004 Newsday staff reporter Victor Manuel Ramos interviews several of the victims who Arnold and Jesse Friedman plead guilty to abusing.
“For Gregory, the hullabaloo over Jarecki’s film — and whether the director will pick up an Oscar tonight — is a sideshow to the legacy of the abuse. Even now, Gregory said he sometimes wakes up at night shaking, especially after hearing of other child abuse cases on the news or elsewhere. What would be passing news to others, hits home for him.
Diagnosed in his preteen years, Gregory said he has persistent rectal bleeding from the abuse. Memories aside, the physical scar will never let him forget. `This is the constant reminder I live with every day,’ Gregory said, `that I was abused.’”
Case of Arnold Friedman and Jessie Friedman “Capturing The Friedmans” http://web.archive.org/web/20070918045108/www.theawarenesscenter.org/arnoldandjessefriedman.html
http://capturingthefriedmans.wordpress.com/
Our research into the case shows that the director of the film sacrificed truth in favor of creating artistic ambiguity. Clear evidence is omitted and facts are distorted. In addition, the film relies on popular but erroneous myths about child sexual abuse. As a result, uncertainty is created about the guilt of two confessed pedophiles — who are recast as victims — while the real victims — the boys and their families — are portrayed as untrustworthy.
CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS” Documentary or Whitewash? http://capturingthefriedmans.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/capturing-the-friedmans-documentary-or-whitewash/
Man’s 1988 child molestation conviction to be revisited by Vivienne Foley, CNN August 17, 2010 “In August 2010, the 2nd Circuit Court decision stated that “… the police, prosecutors and the judge did everything they could to coerce a guilty plea and avoid a trial” and said there was a “reasonable likelihood” Friedman was “wrongfully convicted” of sexually abusing children.” Nassau County (Long Island) District Attorney’s office will re-open the case.
Capturing the Friedmans: Annotated Bibliography http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/bib.html
describes crimes
Many viewers leave the theater believing that they have seen an objective documentary presented by a director who entrusted audiences to draw their own conclusions on Arnold Friedman’s and Jesse Friedman’s guilt. A careful review of the original evidence, however, shows that the case against the Friedmans was much stronger than the film revealed.
Geraldo Rivera’s interview with Jesse Friedman “Busting the Kiddie Porn Underground” February 23, 1989 — Geraldo!
Jesse’s attorney, Peter Panera, is interviewed. He tells how he and Jesse made a special trip to Wisconsin to visit Arnold Friedman in prison to convince him to reveal where he had hidden the photos and videos of the children. Arnold refused to reveal what he had done with them, despite the fact that it would have helped gain lenacy for his son. Jesse’s mother Ms. Friedman also appears on the show.
Frances Galasso, the detective-sergeant who was in charge of the Friedman case, describes Jesse’s lack of remorse for his victims and describes how he and his brother harassed some of the victims’ parents at court proceedings. She says that Jesse told the grandfather of one victim: “Well maybe we are suffering now, but with what we’ve done to your children, they’ll suffer for the rest of their lives.”
Geraldo Rivera’s interview with Jesse Friedman http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/geraldo.html
Geraldo: “How many kids, Jesse, did you and your father actually physically abuse in your home?” Jesse: (long sigh, appears to be mentally counting) “I guess 17.”….
Geraldo: “What did you do to the children?” Jesse: “What did I do to the children? I fondled them. I was forced to pose in 100's of photos for my father in all sorts of sexual positions with the kids and the kids likewise with myself.
The Secret Life of Arnold Friedman By Alvin E. Bessent – Newsday — LI., NY May 28, 1989 http://web.archive.org/web/20060901203550/www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-friedman052889,0,1599081.story
Bessent reports on the victims’ fear of the Friedmans:
“As the abuse escalated so did the threats. Police said the children were extensively videotaped and photographed. No pictures of the children have been recovered. But police said Arnold Friedman told the children he would send pornographic pictures of them to magazines and tell the publishers to print their names if they told what was going on. He threatened to burn their houses down. He reportedly said he would kill their parents. . . . Some of the children who testified before the grand juries received threatening telephone calls warning them not to cooperate with police.” “Some of them still wet their beds, take baseball bats to bed with them or are unable to sleep.” http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/bib.html
State of New York v. Arnold Friedman.
Motion for order requiring return of property seized from 17 Picadilly Road, Great Neck, Nassau County, New York, seized pursuant to search warrant of November 25, 1987. Motion #C-427, Indictment #67104 & 67430.
September 14, 1990.
Judge Abbey L. Boklan approved Arnold Friedmans’ request for the return of all property seized at the Friedman home with the exception of pornographic materials listed in this document. Materials include such items as: 5 pornographic movies, assorted order forms for pornography, assorted pornographic magazine cutouts, 2 partially nude photos of children, 3 sheets advertising homosexuality with boys, 6 photos of naked people, 3 battery operated sex aids, 1 hypodermic needle, 9 pornographic computer games (with descriptions), list of names and phone numbers of 9 victims, 2 registration sheets with names of victims.
The People of the State of New York , Respondent, v. Ross G., Appellant 163 A.D.2d 529; 558 N.Y.S.2d 603; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8786 June 28, 1990
The Supreme Court of New York responds affirmatively to an appeal by Ross Goldstein who asks the state to reduce his sentence to the terms recommended and agreed to by the prosecution. Although he was not mentioned in the film, Mr. Goldstein was a third defendant who was arrested along with Arnold and Jesse Friedman. According to this document, Goldstein, a former friend of Jesse’s who was between 15 and 16 years old when he committed the crimes. He later became repulsed by the abuse, and six months before the Friedmans were arrested, Goldstein disassociated himself from Jesse Friedman and his activities. Goldstein, now age 19, confessed to the crimes and agreed to testify against both Arnold and Jesse Friedman in exchange for leniency.
In Their Own Words: Jesse’s Victims Speak Out http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/vict.html
Victims break their silence Victor Manuel Ramos — Newsday — LI., NY February 29, 2004 Newsday staff reporter Victor Manuel Ramos interviews several of the victims who Arnold and Jesse Friedman plead guilty to abusing.
“For Gregory, the hullabaloo over Jarecki’s film — and whether the director will pick up an Oscar tonight — is a sideshow to the legacy of the abuse. Even now, Gregory said he sometimes wakes up at night shaking, especially after hearing of other child abuse cases on the news or elsewhere. What would be passing news to others, hits home for him.
Diagnosed in his preteen years, Gregory said he has persistent rectal bleeding from the abuse. Memories aside, the physical scar will never let him forget. `This is the constant reminder I live with every day,’ Gregory said, `that I was abused.’”
Case of Arnold Friedman and Jessie Friedman “Capturing The Friedmans” http://web.archive.org/web/20070918045108/www.theawarenesscenter.org/arnoldandjessefriedman.html
http://capturingthefriedmans.wordpress.com/
Our research into the case shows that the director of the film sacrificed truth in favor of creating artistic ambiguity. Clear evidence is omitted and facts are distorted. In addition, the film relies on popular but erroneous myths about child sexual abuse. As a result, uncertainty is created about the guilt of two confessed pedophiles — who are recast as victims — while the real victims — the boys and their families — are portrayed as untrustworthy.
CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS” Documentary or Whitewash? http://capturingthefriedmans.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/capturing-the-friedmans-documentary-or-whitewash/
Man’s 1988 child molestation conviction to be revisited by Vivienne Foley, CNN August 17, 2010 “In August 2010, the 2nd Circuit Court decision stated that “… the police, prosecutors and the judge did everything they could to coerce a guilty plea and avoid a trial” and said there was a “reasonable likelihood” Friedman was “wrongfully convicted” of sexually abusing children.” Nassau County (Long Island) District Attorney’s office will re-open the case.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim, Victim's Op-ed
from http://ritualabuse.us
Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim By Steve Lopez September 30, 2009
The grand jury transcripts of the sex abuse case paint a far more damaging picture of the events that allegedly unfolded between the director and a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's home in 1977. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,1671827,full.column
(Victim's Op-ed) Judge the Movie, Not the Man By Samantha Geimer February 23, 2003 I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me. It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy....We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal.
Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since. Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23/opinion/oe-geimer23
Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim By Steve Lopez September 30, 2009
The grand jury transcripts of the sex abuse case paint a far more damaging picture of the events that allegedly unfolded between the director and a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's home in 1977. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,1671827,full.column
(Victim's Op-ed) Judge the Movie, Not the Man By Samantha Geimer February 23, 2003 I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me. It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy....We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal.
Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since. Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23/opinion/oe-geimer23
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)