October 8, 2012

Link

A former cheerleader for the Cincinnati Bengals pleaded guilty Monday to having sex with a 17-year-old student while she was a high school teacher, a move that will allow her to avoid time in jail.

In a tearful admission in Kenton County Circuit Court in Covington, Ky., 27-year-old Sarah Jones pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct and custodial interference in place of more serious charges as part of a plea agreement with prosecutors.

"I began a romantic relationship while he was a student and I was in a position of authority," Jones said, her voice cracking as her family members wiped their own tears.

Jones said the relationship began in February 2011 at a northern Kentucky high school when the boy was 17. She said the two had sex, that she sent him sexually explicit text messages and lied about the relationship to police.

In accepting the plea agreement, Judge Patricia Summe granted prosecutors' recommendation to sentence Jones to five years of diversion but no jail time. The diversion requires Jones to report to a probation officer, undergo drug tests and never apply for a teaching job again.

Prosecutors said they were willing to make the deal because the teen, now 18, and his family were uncooperative with them and took Jones' side.

Jones had taught at Dixie Heights High School before resigning last November. She was indicted in March, and her trial had been set to start Wednesday.

Part of the reason defense attorney Eric Deters said Jones was willing to plead guilty was because Summe had denied his request to keep the text messages out of the trial.

"They're embarrassing," Deters told reporters after the hearing. "They were steamy."

Jones' mother, former school principal Cheryl Armstrong Jones, also pleaded guilty Monday, to a misdemeanor charge of tampering with evidence. She admitted to the judge that she had sent the teen a text message telling him to get rid of his phone. She also avoided jail time.

Wow. This chick denied this for YEARS. She went through absolute hell over it, and so did her mother. She had me convinced this was a smear job.

But she really did it.

Wow.

And there was something else about her doing stuff with Bengals players or something, because this chick has been in the news for way more than 18 months.

I cannot get for the life of me why some of these teachers cannot exhibit self-control and keep their hands off of students. It's such an abuse of trust and authority

Ugh...

Why is jail time rarely given to convicted female predators in our public schools? Had a male teacher commited the same offense, he'd be looking at serving 5-10 years in prison.

Identity said:

Why is jail time rarely given to convicted female predators in our public schools? Had a male teacher commited the same offense, he'd be looking at serving 5-10 years in prison.

Because the student's only injury is to his high-fiving hand?

If he has the misfortune of experiencing a burning sensation months after the hookup, in all likelihood it's more than a severe case of jock itch.

Lucky guy

Identity said:

Why is jail time rarely given to convicted female predators in our public schools? Had a male teacher commited the same offense, he'd be looking at serving 5-10 years in prison.

Because "women got emotional issues and men are just sexist beasts". Least that's how it goes...

Didn't we have a thread about this case a few month ago around here?

I recall some heated disagreements between those who called her (if she's the same one) a "child molester" and "abusing her position of power" and those who dismissed it because the "child" was like a 6' tall football player.

PurpleJedi said:

Didn't we have a thread about this case a few month ago around here?

I recall some heated disagreements between those who called her (if she's the same one) a "child molester" and "abusing her position of power" and those who dismissed it because the "child" was like a 6' tall football player.

Yeah at the time we were all making suggestions. I wasn't gonna pass judgment unless there was proof or she admitted it... once she did, I couldn't give her an excuse... she abused her power as a teacher.

PurpleJedi said:

Didn't we have a thread about this case a few month ago around here?

There was a pre-trial thread in April.

Some guys have..............

Graycap23 said:

Some guys have..............

so, the "boy" (ha!) was 17...some months older and it would have been legal...hypocrisy at its best

he's a f*cking twit as far as I'm concerned

[Edited 10/9/12 11:53am]

pleading guilty does not make one guilty

just broke, or unable to sustain a defense...

JoeTyler said:

so, the "boy" (ha!) was 17...some months older and it would have been legal...hypocrisy at its best

he's a f*cking twit as far as I'm concerned

[Edited 10/9/12 11:53am]

From what I understand, he didn't want to press charges.

KingBAD said:

pleading guilty does not make one guilty

just broke, or unable to sustain a defense...

KingBAD said:

pleading guilty does not make one guilty

just broke, or unable to sustain a defense...

But see this is what I don't get, if there was no real proof that they had a fling or whatever, then why plead guilty?

Identity said:

If he has the misfortune of experiencing a burning sensation months after the hookup, in all likelihood it's more than a severe case of jock itch.

It does not say anywhere in the article that the sex they had was not safe.

Timmy84 said:

KingBAD said:

pleading guilty does not make one guilty

just broke, or unable to sustain a defense...

But see this is what I don't get, if there was no real proof that they had a fling or whatever, then why plead guilty?

To avoid a lengthy & expensive trial and - if you lose - jail time.

Timmy84 said:

KingBAD said:

pleading guilty does not make one guilty

just broke, or unable to sustain a defense...

But see this is what I don't get, if there was no real proof that they had a fling or whatever, then why plead guilty?

Legal proceedings are not 4 the faint of heart or folks with no loot..................

Graycap23 said:

Timmy84 said:

But see this is what I don't get, if there was no real proof that they had a fling or whatever, then why plead guilty?

Legal proceedings are not 4 the faint of heart or folks with no loot..................

There is no such thing as "blind justice" here. Money talks, and broke-ass MF'ers walk (to the penitentiary).

Graycap23 said:

Timmy84 said:

But see this is what I don't get, if there was no real proof that they had a fling or whatever, then why plead guilty?

Legal proceedings are not 4 the faint of heart or folks with no loot..................

That's why I always say if you ain't got no money, don't go to trial honey...

sexton said:

Identity said:

If he has the misfortune of experiencing a burning sensation months after the hookup, in all likelihood it's more than a severe case of jock itch.

It does not say anywhere in the article that the sex they had was not safe.

I know, I know. Hence, the use of the term "if".

Timmy84 said:

KingBAD said:

pleading guilty does not make one guilty

just broke, or unable to sustain a defense...

But see this is what I don't get, if there was no real proof that they had a fling or whatever, then why plead guilty?

The text messages exchanged between them are admissible in evidence. Those communications apparently confirmed the sexual encounter.

....

[Edited 10/9/12 14:02pm]

Identity said:

sexton said:

But see this is what I don't get, if there was no real proof that they had a fling or whatever, then why plead guilty?

The text messages exchanged between them are admissible in evidence. Those communications apparently confirmed the sexual encounter.

....

[Edited 10/9/12 13:54pm]

Ah I see...

sexton said:

Identity said:

If he has the misfortune of experiencing a burning sensation months after the hookup, in all likelihood it's more than a severe case of jock itch.

It does not say anywhere in the article that the sex they had was not safe.

She got arrested for it, so I guess it wasn't very safe after all.

RodeoSchro said:

sexton said:

It does not say anywhere in the article that the sex they had was not safe.

She got arrested for it, so I guess it wasn't very safe after all.

Well she was his teacher so that was already a violation. I don't know about the age limit since dude was 17.

Timmy84 said:

RodeoSchro said:

She got arrested for it, so I guess it wasn't very safe after all.

Well she was his teacher so that was already a violation. I don't know about the age limit since dude was 17.

I may be wrong, but I think it's 18 since he was her student.

Identity said:

sexton said:

Identity said:

If he has the misfortune of experiencing a burning sensation months after the hookup, in all likelihood it's more than a severe case of jock itch.

It does not say anywhere in the article that the sex they had was not safe.

Hence, the use of the term "if".

Why even make the assumption in the first place?