Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no possibility that he took money or that Sidwell had any thing to do with his plea. Peterson's case has largely played out outside the public eye. Sidwell has no risk in the outcome either way. He was fired and nobody really care about it after that except, of course, on this site.

He plead guilty but did not get jail time which suggests that no other kid came forward despite a very energetic effort to find other victims.

Uh, I think one of the defense fund supporters has joined us. Sidwell has "no risk in the outcome either way"? What parallel universe do you live in? "I'm totally cool with paying hundreds of thousands for my kid to go to a school where a long time teacher and sleep away camp director is a registered sex offender, the fact that they fired him after many years and God only knows how many victims just wipes the slate clean?"

We have NO way of knowing how many victims there were unless more come forward with charges. Pedos don't tend to offend once in a lifetime, it strains credulity to think that he got himself in the position of Sleep Away Camp Director "just because". No one really cared about it except on this site, that's why it was in the Washington Post, they take all of their direction from DCUM.

The ONLY reason someone would plead guilty in a case like this is because they are in fact guilty and are avoiding worse info becoming public through the trial process or because they want to avoid the risk of jail time. No idea if his choice was encouraged by "supporters" with financial means or not but it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility. That he had the balls to publicly publish the letter to the minor VICTIM on the internet in an attempt to influence the outcome of the case is extraordinary, but typical of the types of adults who commit these offenses. They, and their supporters/defenders are the lowest of the low. Even criminals despise people who sexually prey on children.

There is absolutely no possibility that he took money or that Sidwell had any thing to do with his plea. Peterson's case has largely played out outside the public eye. Sidwell has no risk in the outcome either way. He was fired and nobody really care about it after that except, of course, on this site.

He plead guilty but did not get jail time which suggests that no other kid came forward despite a very energetic effort to find other victims.

The government's inability to get jail time mean that prosecutors simply didn't have any evidence other than the word of the victim. Peterson may have agreed to plead guilty to avoid the risk of jail time and to put the matter behind him. Had he gone to trial and been found guilty, he could have faced 15 years in jail - effectively a life sentence.

PP again, I doubt that the school admin directly gave him money but it could have been donations from some of his supporters or others in the school community.

I'm guessing the poor victim also had some stake in avoiding the trauma of a trial and that they felt some comfort in knowing that he would be prevented from being in a teaching position again.

I dunno, PP, it could have been a LOT of $. Sidwell had a lot at stake here and the teacher had to know that he will probably never work again. With the hardball tactics of the letter, who knows?

Pedos make me sick, as do all of the people around them constantly making excuses. I'm sure that Sidwell hoped to go the BV route and have record apps instead of a drop next year. My heart goes out to this child and their family. The published letter was disgusting and really exposes the kind of abusive and entitled thinking that these people display. So sad but necessary to be on guard with anyone around our children.

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this because I have always respected Sidwell, but Peterson's guilty plea strongly indicates to me he was given $$$$ from higher ups connected to SFS to not face a trial - because he likely was guilty and because it was a PR nightmare for the school if he fought it and stood trial. Had a trial ensued - a complete and thorough examination would have been made in the public eye about the way the school handled the situation and other incidents that probably have surfaced. I have very little doubt that the school knew he needed $$ and they also knew enough damning information was out there - so they cut a private deal.

Pleading guilty not only ends his teaching career, but also makes him virtually unemployable in anything he would probably care about doing. Why on earth would someone do this unless they were actually guilty?

Please, let's put the irrational conspiracy theories away.

PP - you are, to put it bluntly, delusional. No one who was not guilty of pedophilia would plead guilty just to help out the school, and just because they got some money. And if he was guilty (as the plea implies ... and in fact, for all purposes is basically an admission), then the decision to plead would not have been based on what the school did. It would be based on whether he could succeed at trial. There is no way the plea is a "private deal" with the school.

I can't believe I'm saying this because I have always respected Sidwell, but Peterson's guilty plea strongly indicates to me he was given $$$$ from higher ups connected to SFS to not face a trial - because he likely was guilty and because it was a PR nightmare for the school if he fought it and stood trial. Had a trial ensued - a complete and thorough examination would have been made in the public eye about the way the school handled the situation and other incidents that probably have surfaced. I have very little doubt that the school knew he needed $$ and they also knew enough damning information was out there - so they cut a private deal.

No jail time? That is outrageous! And it shows how outrageous the defense web site was and its attempt to obstruct justice. A number of people should be investigated.

Anonymous wrote:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/ex-sidwell-friends-teacher-ple.html

Thanks for the update. I see that his defense fund website disappeared.

I'm not sure his not being able to see his grandchild works against him per se, it could be seen as an extreme precaution the system has imposed. But overall I agree this letter works against the accused, not for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why hasn't his son requested supervised visits?

How do you know he hasn't? It's not a slam dunk that they would be awarded if they were requested. When it comes to allegations of sexual abuse involving a minor, innocent until proven guilty seems to go out the window.

So if Petersen had minor children living at home, they couldn't live under the same roof with him while he's presumed to be a pedophile? According to his supporter's letter, there's only the allegations of one accuser and no evidence against him as far as they know. It really seems that there's significant enough evidence against him if the court is keeping his grandson away and possibly refusing to grant his request for supervised visits.

Yes, his supporter's letter seems more destructive to his case than supportive.

Anonymous wrote:So why hasn't his son requested supervised visits?

How do you know he hasn't? It's not a slam dunk that they would be awarded if they were requested. When it comes to allegations of sexual abuse involving a minor, innocent until proven guilty seems to go out the window.

So why hasn't his son requested supervised visits?

Anonymous wrote: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.

His son is listed at the bottom of the letter as one of the supporters of his defense fund.