Sidwell Soc. Studies teacher and Sleep Away Camp Director Arrested for Sexual Abuse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone here assumes Robert Peterson is guilty. Quite literally everyone who knows him well and who has talked to him post-allegations believes he is innocent. Here is an open letter from those closest to him:

http://robertpetepetersonlegaldefensefund.org/openletter.html

What a bunch of guilt-tripping assholes. Of course, those closest to him presume he's guilty. Hopefully, the trial will provide more clarity to this sordid situation.

Pedophiles are some of the most manipulative creatures out there. I hope the victim(s) in this case have been receiving substantial support.

Your complete lack of any knowledge of the situation or any of the individuals involved is obvious, so I don't blame you for automatically siding with the victim. But for those who are at all interested, this defense fund website was not created by his closest friends/family until they all publicly stated that they were 100% certain he was not guilty.

I meant: Of course, those closest to him presume he's innocent. Your letter makes me question Petersen's innocence, good thing I won't be on the jury.

PP, how the hell can anyone be 100% certain he's not guilty?

[Anonymous]

We don't know that the accusers testimony is the only evidence.

Someone needs to tell these supposed friends of Petersen that they are really hurting his cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This letter is OUTRAGEOUS and it shows the crazy, self-serving, self-righteous side of Quakerism that always gave me the willies. I could see writing an Open Letter to the Public. But to the accuser? Now that someone's posted this link, I am glad this thread was resurrected. I was annoyed at first. Boy this is enlightening.

Come on, you can't indict a whole religion based on the words of a couple of people. What if everyone judged Christians as a whole based on the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church?

[Anonymous]

20:21 Read the post. It says the "crazy ... side of Quakerism." There are obviously many sides. I did not indict the whole religion. I commented on one side of it, the side revealed in this horrid letter -- a letter to a child.

[Anonymous]

I have no idea if this man is innocent or guilty. I hope that justice will be revealed. Either way there are innocent people involved. The whole situation is very sad.

I just read the letter and it was clear to me that the authors care deeply about this man, and believe based on their own experience and hope based on the allegations that he is innocent. It sounds to me like they feel that the school treated him horribly by letting him arrive on campus the first day of school to then persecute him. According to the author school threatened him unless he adhered to their mandates, but they still fired him in a cruel way. It actually sounds to me like the authors are outraged by the way the school has treated Peterson. Basically the administration made threats and although he abided by their terms, they still fired him once it came out in the media. I wish the authors had written a letter to the school about humanity. Perhaps they should revisit the Salem Witch Trials in which the residents of Salem became suspicious of Quakers and then subjected them to horrific treatment. Regardless of whether this man is guilty or innocent, I hope the school takes a look at the way they acted and realize their own hypocrisy. At the same time I find it sad that the supporters of the sight didn't have the courage to directly call the school out by addressing the members of the administration for their hypocrisy. Talk about misdirected anger...

[Anonymous]

Based on what was posted in this thread, it sounds like the school was faced with the charges, placed the accused on administrative leave, with pay (and other conditions) and then fired him when authorities levied charges after an investigation.

What exactly did the school do wrong here?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, i can't imagine the school doing any less without being faced with a crapstorm of criticism. Their first priority must be the kids. And there is a very strong possibility that they are privy to much more information than we are here.

I recall he was fired when indicted, which makes perfect sense. When it was simply an investigation, the school had to keep him away from the kids but still respect his rights in case nothing came of the investigation. Once prosecutors found enough evidence to indict, that balance shifted.

This is not the Salem witch trials, please.

[Anonymous]

I don't share the thoughts about this "side of Quakerism" but the authors of the letter do position themselves as somehow more moral because of their exposure to Quakerism (not sure they are actually Quakers) which does seem offensive to me when they are taking on the alleged victim so directly. Shameful, really.

[Anonymous]

Maybe I am missing something but I don't get why he cannot see his own grandchild. Isn't that his son/daughter's decision? Or is he not allowed to be around ANYONE underage?

I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I am missing something but I don't get why he cannot see his own grandchild. Isn't that his son/daughter's decision? Or is he not allowed to be around ANYONE underage?

I don't get it.

Struck me as an additional layer of manipulation especially with the picture of his grand baby. I would image that until this case is settled, he cannot be around anyone underage. In other words, he's considered to be a pedophile until he's legally proven innocent. Sounds like there may be strong enough evidence against him.

[Anonymous]

It may be a court-ordered condition of his bail,but I'm not sure why he didn't carve out an exception for at least supervised visits with his grandson. I would think the court would allow that, if his lawyers asked. Did they? And if they didn't, its just another way in which this letter is way off base.

[Anonymous]

That letter is utterly horrific. If the "accuser" truly has been victimized, this letter is victimizing him again. Leave this to the legal system to decide.

[Anonymous]

It makes no sense that he cannot see his grand son -- unless his own child is the one who won't let it happen (which would obviously be damning).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It makes no sense that he cannot see his grand son -- unless his own child is the one who won't let it happen (which would obviously be damning).

What you are saying makes sense. Perhaps his own child for some reason
believes the charges against him.

[Anonymous]

It makes sense. There are probably guidelines that recommend that accused offenders keep away from all minors, and the defense fund is playing that up to make the accused look like a victim. I do not for a minute think his son is not allowing him to see his grandchild. If that were the case, the defense fund would surely keep it secret. Anyway, I have no inside knowledge, this is merely my interpretation of the facts.