thats what i thought wrote on Jul 18, 2006 12:52 PM:So much for all the BS that he was inocent. GUILTY as charged. You do the crime than expect to do the time.

Suprised wrote on Jul 18, 2006 1:12 PM:Only 15 years? Not even 1 year for each conviction. And 9 charges either dropped or unproven. Hmmm, makes you think that maybe the accusations or accusers were talked into something...

Crocodile Tears wrote on Jul 18, 2006 2:23 PM:That's right, cry your way to the bank folks. Congratulations on destroying a good teacher. I hope the money you gain from suing the school district creates chaos in your lives. May the champagne taste like vinegar and the caviar taste like ash. May all those new toys and luxuries hang around your necks and drag your lying souls to Hell. You found the perfect patsy to take a fall but the deep pockets of the taxpayers will never allow you to spend away the harm you’ve inflicted on your children. For shame, for shame.

dc wrote on Jul 18, 2006 2:41 PM:The jury of his peers convicted him. Its the American way. Should we have just castrated him without a jury? Obviously there was evidence and besides what is he doing in his student's pants? He wouldn't have lived long enough had I caught him! JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED

Teacher wrote on Jul 18, 2006 3:39 PM:Justice has not been served. This rendition of the story does not include the Judge's comments at the sentencing. The Judge noted that he thought the penalty was TOO harsh but he was compelled by statute to render it. The Judge went so far as to outline an appeals strategy for Ziskin. "A jury of his peers" laughable! Those people were not his peers. Not even close.

Harry wrote on Jul 18, 2006 4:43 PM:I believe that the sentence should be Life without the possibility of parole, for all sexual abusers of children. We know that they will eventually get out and that when they do they will repeat their offences. The problem of where to allow them to live and maintaining a registry of known offenders etc. can be solved by not allowing them a second chance. Most offenders have a ratio of 30 to 50 offences for each charged. They don't get better. Protect our children and protect the offender--don't give them oppurtunity to offend again.

Guilty in Esco wrote on Jul 18, 2006 4:50 PM:Everyone can sit and say that this guy was a nice guy...blah blah blah...The bottom line were you in the room or a fly on the wall when this guy was with these children. NO, I wasn't in the room either. But you have to wonder why all these kids would have such similar stories with the same type of fondling etc. You can place blame on the police and call thier questioning suggestive or leading. I think not. Friends and family of Ziskin you need to realize that you were duped by a molester and you need to accept the fact. You can call this a witch hunt or whatever...but he was found guilty beyond a resonable doubt and thats, that...And for those of you who are teachers, need to keep your hands out of childrens pants and then cry fould when you are caught....

Teacher wrote on Jul 18, 2006 5:39 PM:To Guilty in Esco Yes,the students stories are similar - no one at the trial denied the contact. But the law says it must be done for 'sexual gratification" The judge tried to make this clear to the jurors but they lacked the ability to distinguish between what actually happened and what the DDA told them happened. They were scared by her characterization of a child molester - that IS scary. But it is not the law. another notch in the belt of Tracy Prior

To Harry wrote on Jul 18, 2006 5:39 PM:You seem to know a lot about the patterns of child molesters. If you look into the life of Pete Ziskin, you will see that there is nothing from the first 42 years of his life that is indicative of a child molester. Only after he got into the public school arena did anyone question him or his interactions with children...and those children's stories have changed considerably since they were orginally questioned. I, too, believe that sex offenders belong behind bars and away from society...but if you really delve deeply into this case, (as far back as before the testimony in court) you will see that Ziskin neither fits the classical, the technical, nor the general public's definition of a child molester. Bottom line, an innocent man sits in jail.

To "Teacher" wrote on Jul 18, 2006 6:24 PM:No, the Judge did not outline an "appeals stategy". If you listened carefully he was protecting this case from ever winning an appeal. The Judge NEVER said the penalty was "TOO harsh" he said it was a harsh penalty he was bound to administer, due to our laws. If you think a man, a teacher, should be allowed to touch young boys on their genitals... then work your bottom off to change the laws. The rest of us law abiding citizens will fight you tooth and nail... believe me.

To "Teacher" wrote on Jul 18, 2006 6:27 PM:PS one of the people on the jury is a teacher... so YES, they were his peers. How dare you laugh at them!

Harry wrote on Jul 18, 2006 6:32 PM:I admit that I don't know anything about this specific case. I have no oppinion about this man's guilt or innocense. I do know about the clinical treatment of molesters and based my comments on my professional background; not case specific. I stand by my remarks that a clinically diagnosed pedophile shouldnt "do his time" and then get another chance. "One strike and he's out" in my book. That doesn't necessarily mean unending punishment. I believe in humane life long care in a maximum secure facility.

To "Teacher" 5:39 wrote on Jul 18, 2006 6:41 PM:"No one at the trial denied the contact", are you kidding me? You are a "Teacher" and you think it is ok to have contact with a young students genitals? If you teach anywhere in Escondido, you are freaking me out right now. WAIT! If you teach ANYWHERE you are officially fired. Please, pack up your desk and go turn yourself in. Only a freak would think it was ok to touch 8 boys on their genitals and nothing be "wrong" with the picture. If there was no "sexual gratification" gained, why the heck wasn't he repeatedly touching their textbooks, he was their teacher...

Discouraged in Escondido wrote on Jul 18, 2006 7:05 PM:I'll bet not one of the families involved will be filing lawsuits for monetary gain either against Pete Ziskin or the school district.... Yea Right!!! I know some of the families involved and they are leading their children down a dangerous path of always blaming others and not looking at the truth.

To "Harry" wrote on Jul 18, 2006 7:05 PM:Re: "An innocent man sits in jail". I think not. I think now innocent boys do their best to go on with their lives with the love and support of their parents and families-and not let this man take another single thing from them. How scary it is that it took him stepping out into the "public arena" to recognize that his behavior was criminal. Shame on you for not seeing it sooner. But more so, shame on him. That's the "bottom line". You all made it possible for him to think he could get away with this. You failed him. By not seeing the real him.

Justice wrote on Jul 18, 2006 7:16 PM:Justice will be when the convictions are overturned and Pete Ziskin sues the families and the DA for pursuing this beyond a reasonable doubt!

George wrote on Jul 18, 2006 7:49 PM:i want to thank the Honorable Judge Casserly for his part in the process. He had the power to give Mr Ziskin 255 years . Instead, he gave him the minimum the state would allow, 15 to life. This gives Mr Ziskin hope of someday returning to society as a 60 year old.

big sister wrote on Jul 18, 2006 8:56 PM:The fact is that none of the "victims" thought they were molested until they were told they were by those investigating. Yes it was shown by experts that the interviews with students were skewed. Any kid can say anything and unfortunately the parents and prosecution are helping put the whole fabricated story together. No one wants someone out who is really abusing children. I would just issue a very stern warning to all male teachers, camp counselors, and scout leaders; Watch Out! You very easily could be next. The DA's office is throwing out a very broad and wide net to catch anyone who comes near. The judge spent almost half an hour basically explaning, almost apologizing for having to issue a 15-life sentence, because he has to follow the state guidelines. It is sad that even the judge couldn't issue the more lenient sentence he felt was appropiate. It leaves no room for the individual and the individual crime. Everyone is categorized together in a big heap. Individual situations need to be looked at to see what really happened. As it stands today, the rallying cry is prosecute all those men who get too close to kids and put them away for ever. Don't look at the circumstances or individual situation. How would you like to be treated that way?

Ignorance wrote on Jul 18, 2006 9:56 PM:It is interesting to read this dialogue and see how much ingnorance there is out there by those that claim innocence without being close to the incident. It is one thing to provide support, but it's a different thing to claim innocence on behalf of an accuser. Unless you are a parent of a child that has come to you describing how a teacher touched his private parts several times forcefully while he was trying to pull his hand out, you have no right to claim innocence, much less create an artifical argument full of ingorance. My greatest award of ignorance goes to the so called 'Teacher' so implying that it's OK for a teacher to touch a student in their privates. You're days are probably counted in Escondido once the school district realizes your school ethnics. And for the record, it was not 255 years, it was 120 years, but since 15-life covers a full life sentence, the 120 years become meaningless and serving the penalty in consecutively years makes no difference. It was not the judge, it was the prosecution team that made this point and recommendation well in advanced. You need to realize that in these cases there are no winners, but you need to respect both sides of affected parties and stop your ignorance, especially by those claimed to be 'teachers' and making statements that are damaging the reputation of good teachers.

GFN wrote on Jul 18, 2006 10:47 PM:Maybe when he does return to society, he can get a position as a baby sitter for Judge Casserly's children.

Pittsburgh wrote on Jul 19, 2006 12:39 AM:I don't know what happened because I wasn't there. I can fathom someone getting sexual gratification out of swiping their hand over a childs genitals. I have two daughters so I am real protective over the innocence of a child. The only worry I have is that there seems to be plenty of reasonable doubt sorrounding this case, and child predators are all over the news constantly. Does that mean that this was a witch hunt? No. But, it definately makes you see the witch hunt theory as a real possibility with all the national attention and fear that this subject has generated in the recent past. For 15-Life I sure hope this guy really is guilty. I find it funny that our legal system lets blatant criminals off because of technicalities and then will convict someone when there is reasonable doubt (a case built on full testimony and no physical evidence definately has some doubt). This is why I will never volunteer or work around children. If you are accused, your reputation and life are ruined regardless of the outcome.

senior now. wrote on Jul 19, 2006 2:01 AM:man oh man. im going to be a senior now, and i remember having this guy as a sub in a couple classes in 7th grade. i remember him being a cool guy. what a bummer.

Teacher wrote on Jul 19, 2006 6:11 AM:"Mean spirited" is a phrase often used to define some portions of society and I think this commentary reflects the 'mean spiritedness' of people and also the real tragedy of poor reading comprehension. No wrote that "it is ok to have contact with a young students genitals" (with or without the correct use of an apostrophe) No one thinks that is ok. Go back and read some of the more thoughtful comments on this blog. There were no winners in court yesterday. While the 'victims' attended summer school at the high school because they are academicly at-risk, a good teacher is no longer available to help kids avoid going to summer school before entering high school. And many other teachers are seriously considering the legal dangers which now seem inherent in their chosen profession.

To GFN wrote on Jul 19, 2006 6:31 AM:And I'm sure the Judge won't mind!

must be annonomous wrote on Jul 19, 2006 7:31 AM:This is a sad day for this family. I know this issue well. I don't know this man but I do know another who was recently convicted. Good people sometimes do this very bad crime. I can't speak for this case other than what I read but here is what I know: 1. This man who was by all accounts a good person will receive no help in prison to overcome his compulsions. 2. He will get out (when doesn't matter). What matters is if he is really a good person and has potential to be healed then California wastes a number of years supporting him but not fixing him which increases the percentage of possible recidivism. 3. Some of these men and yes women can be rehabilitated but California and most of you that write are voting for him to be locked up and the key thrown away. Almost all offenders now get caught because we have our eyes wide open. The issue is that not all of these men are the "creepy crawlers" that will rape and kill. Almost all of them were molested as children and something just goes wrong in their heads. Some can be fixed. I support fixing the fixable and throwing away the rest.

Silver Lining wrote on Jul 19, 2006 7:54 AM:Well, while he is in there, maybe he can help those who are incarcerated with him by being the teacher again. Hopefully, he will find opportunities to use his training.

To "Teacher" wrote on Jul 19, 2006 7:58 AM:I know several of the boys. None of them are in summer school, but thank you for your concern. Yet, if any of the other boys are in summer school, you can probably thank your friend and his illness for it. The whole thing has been quite disrupting to their education. It's tough to return to and respect the scene of a crime. And that is what Mr Z turned Rincon into for them.

To 'Teacher' wrote on Jul 19, 2006 8:03 AM:You are a sick person if you think "feeling up" students is okay. I have read your statements and basically, that is what you are saying. And, where do you get your facts? To lump all the boys as "academically at risk" and "going to summer school" is incorrect and a down right lie. If the parents do decide to proceed to a lawsuit it will be to get teachers like you out of the didtrict. To wake them up that 'horseplay' is unacceptable even for the teachers. And this theory 'all people beware of working with kids'. No, use common sense...certain touching is wrong. Would you want you daughter grabbed around the waist and crotch and thrown over a shoulder? Then why is it okay for a boy? The double standard is wrong. As Sunday School Superintendant for 20 years with my church we were constantly communicating standards of touch. As a worker in softball for 17 years we communicated standards of touch. And, we were very watchful that these standards were met. Why the administration of Rincon Middle School failed to communicate proper standards of touch and allowed it to continue is their burden to bear.

A Survivor wrote on Jul 19, 2006 8:14 AM:God Bless the victims and families. What happened to you was NOT your fault. I am so sorry for what you have been through. You have been brave to follow through. Please know that you are not alone.

Grandparent wrote on Jul 19, 2006 8:59 AM:These kids don't even know what happened to them. Nothing happened! Where were their parents? The grandparents were there to speak for them. Let's face it, us grandparents never think our grandchildren lie! Funny how none of these kids parents ever at school until this happened and then they smelled money!

PJ wrote on Jul 19, 2006 9:19 AM:First thing that would have set me off was the fact that a teacher was "rough-housing" with students. That is just not part of a teacher's job and is not professional behavior. The male teachers I know that are true professionals KNOW to keep their hands to themselves and maintain a professional demeanor at all times. Teachers should not be concerned about being our students "buddies". A lot more educating in the classroom would be accomplished if all teachers realized this.

To Teacher wrote on Jul 19, 2006 9:33 AM:If I'm not mistaking you wrote [no one at the trial denied the contact. But the law says it must be done for sexual gratification]. This implies that it's OK to put your hands down the kids pants and touch their privates so long as you do not get sexual gratification. How you like me to try this on your son or daughter and then we can discuss whether there was any sexual gratification. This has nothing to do with 'mean spirited' and a lot to do with your ignorance and lack of respect for those affeced. And I ask that you do not disclose any information and/or activities related to the victims (i.e. attending summer school). Another credit to your ignorance, one of the boys is attending summer school to be placed in AP next Fall.

To Survivor wrote on Jul 19, 2006 9:34 AM:Thank you for your concern. The lack of concern shown by Peter friends and family has been more hurtful to the boys then sometimes the actual molest. It is obviuos since most parents and supporters of boys comments here are not being posted that the NC Times is more sympathetic to the criminal then the victims. They continue to print the lies and innuendos against the boys and parents, but when the truth is stated somehow it gets lost in the editing room. What about free speech....NC Times violating the 1st Amendment.

Bad Crime wrote on Jul 19, 2006 9:48 AM:Sounds like this ex-teacher was a nice guy and thats too bad. But prisons are filled with many "nice" guys and gals. A common ploy for molesters is to be the "nice" guy. A majority of molesters are not monsters who jump out from behind the bushes and grab your kids. A majority of molesters end up being family members or family friends who have be trusted to get close to the children. To the supporters of Ziskin you need to move on and realize that you were tricked by this guy. He violated your trust and now you are mad but you need to focus your anger somewhere else. By supporting this guy it only makes you look ignorant. I urge you to watch MSNBC's show regarding investigating online predators and look at all the "nice" guys who show up to meet a 13 year old boy and have sex with him. Molesters are in all areas of society and we all need to be aware and vigilant.

Screw your kids wrote on Jul 19, 2006 11:47 AM:After this charade, I sincerely hope there isn't an individual left on this planet who's willing to teach your children. Teach them yourselves, or just let them grow up stupid and become Marines or dishwashers, just like most of you already are!

To GrandParent wrote on Jul 19, 2006 12:16 PM:Sometimes I wonder if it's worth responding to your ignorance. But someone needs to 'educate' you. The parents were in court yesterday and in fact one of them spoke by addressing Peter directly. Most parents were either too emotional or could not get to close to Peter without paying back the crime. And as far as where are the parents? The parents have been engaged in the trial all along - were you in court when the evidence was presented (i.e. several pairs of the boys ripped pants caused by Peter's hand while trying to get his hand down their private parts)? And to your point of parents being involved in school, many of these parents have volunteered by couching various sports, assisting during special events, transportation, and even cooking for the entire school during science projects biology week.

To Grandparent & big sister wrote on Jul 19, 2006 1:14 PM:Where were you when Pete needed assistance with his mother and father? He took his lonliness and anger out on these boys. He was acting out to get attention. Do you not see that? Where was the family & friends when he needed help - 3-4 years ago? You want to blame someone for his predicument...blame yourself for not seeing his pain sooner.

To Screw Your Kids wrote on Jul 19, 2006 1:23 PM:Based on your unprofessional comments, it seems that there were no teachers left to educate you. Your thoughtless comments don't warrant a response - grow up and move on to another Blog to waste your time.

To 'To Screw your kids' wrote on Jul 19, 2006 2:35 PM:Oh, I see it is only okay for his supporters to vilify the boys & parents. The supporters lies and conspiracy theories, charges of ignorance, thoughtless comments are okay to spew...but when the truth is told it is 'unprofessional' and uneducated. Of course they don't want to look at the cause, because then they would have to look into a mirror and maybe take some blame for what happened. The boys certainly didn't ask to be violated and they have done no wrong. The parents trusting the schools to protect sent their children to be learn, not to be violated.

Look: wrote on Jul 19, 2006 3:46 PM:You just can't do that to kids. Period.

To Survivor & Bad Crime wrote on Jul 19, 2006 4:03 PM:Kudos !!! TO ANONYMOUS--Whom shall we re-habilitate the person who molests your child ?!! The judicial failed my family 14 yrs. ago I hope that these boys get the emotional support and therapy they need and deserve !!!

To Survivor & Bad Crime wrote on Jul 19, 2006 4:04 PM:Kudos !!! TO ANONYMOUS--Whom shall we re-habilitate the person who molests your child ?!! The judicial system failed my family 14 yrs. ago I hope that these boys get the emotional support and therapy they need and deserve !!!

Have fun in prison wrote on Jul 19, 2006 4:21 PM:Did you know that felons in prison are told by prison officals to NEVER disclose there offense? Did you know that there are many evil people in prison who are fathers and still love there kids? Pervert prison life expectancy = 6 years. Have fun Ziskin!

sad for all wrote on Jul 19, 2006 6:57 PM:Children need attention, they will go to anyone who will give it to them willingly. Parents really need to look their kids in the eyes every day, and make sure their needs are getting met. Talk to them, or just be with them, let them know they can tell you anything, ANYTHING. Its a bit odd none of the kids said any inappropriate touching was going on until they were "professionally" interviewed. If all this really happened, those children should have felt safe speaking to their own families before they had to sit in front of perfect strangers. Now that is sad.

That's the sort of thing I wonder about... wrote on Jul 19, 2006 8:26 PM:I've noticed that the media's story has changed...just a little, but enough in semantics (I hope that word isn't to big for the readers to understand) to make a difference to the public. What was originally reported as 'some of the boys said the back of his hand may have touched their genitals' has changed to 'grabbed at their genitals.' And why would these parents keep pants that were ripped between September and December, but never report a crime until they were asked in February? Are there any finger prints on the pants? Is there any way to date the rips? A lot of people seem to think that Ziskin is guilty, but a lot seem to think that he is not, and there isn't anything provided as evidence beyond the words of victims whose families stand to make a pretty penny out of this. To an outsider, it just seems that Ziskin could as easily be the victim of the press and legal system's "flavor of the week" as guilty. I guess, if the victim's families wanted to show that they weren't just in this for the money, they could donate ALL of the money that they get from the school district, the state, and any other place to a worthy charity. But in southern California, the odds of that seem minimal.

Would you like fries with that? wrote on Jul 19, 2006 8:42 PM:I know one thing. As a single male in today's political climate, I would take ANY job over working with kids. If the guy is a molester, that's one thing, but I wrestle with my friend's kids all the time. I usually grab them by the waistband instead of the arm so I don't accidently bruise them. Sometimes I tickle them until they yell for me to stop. Then they jump on me and ask to wrestle some more. When I volunteered as a coach for the pee-wee basket-ball team at my church, I did the same thing with the kids there. But now that I read about this case, I guess I must be doing it to get some kind of sexual satisfaction out of it. My girlfriend doesn't know it, my family doesn't know it, my oldest friends don't know it...heck, even I didn't know. Guess I'm just lucky. I'd work at McDonald's before I'd put myself in a public school.

To "That's the sort of thing" wrote on Jul 19, 2006 9:26 PM:Do you have a 12 year old? I do. The piles of "stuff" in his room could easily be available to explain something that occured up to 6 mos ago, I am ashamed to admit it, but it is true. At that age they are growing like weeds and what fit them last week could be in a heap in the closet this week, and YES unfortunately 3-4 mos later. I know it sounds horrible but we are all so busy and a couple of pairs of shorts and even T-shirts, in my son's case can sit around and quite literally collect dust...it is true, and the whole time they were sitting around, I would not have inspected them for tears or ripped buttons, they would have just been sitting there. I only say this to address the fact that you are making these parents out to be Monica Lewinsky with the blue dress, kept for months for evidence, wake up... they are boys, they are a mess, and their rooms are probably a mess---and as parents, we all might be shocked to actually be able to produce an outfit worn several weeks ago by one of our children that never made it to the laundy room. Or actually a lot of times in my case they made it to the laundry room but just not to the Goodwill yet where they belong. I have nothing to do with this case, but I just had to say--- Monica Lewinsky they are not.

To "That's the sort of thing" wrote on Jul 19, 2006 9:30 PM:"There isn't anything provided as evidence beyond the words of victims whose families stand to make a pretty penny out of this" ANOTHER lie, an adult walked into his classroom and caught him.

Just Someone wrote on Jul 19, 2006 9:42 PM:I have read a lot of the comments regarding the Peter Ziskin sentencing. There seem to be some thoughtful, and intelligent people out there who at least have an open mind. But I am truly amazed at the vicious comments of some people. One comment suggesting that Peter Ziskin has a good chance of not surviving jail. And the writer seemed pleased about that. This case is somewhat unique, definitely different. What if he WAS only roughhousing with the students? And that any touch that occured Was accidental? Yes, he acted irresponsibly as a teacher. But to be charged, convicted and sentenced as a child molester? I don,t think the tough sentences were meant for this.

TO 'SAD FOR ALL & THAT'S THE SORT' wrote on Jul 19, 2006 9:43 PM:Every parents nightmare is a person of trust using your child for their sexually gratification. You have to consider the age of these boys before you can make a blanket assessment of why they didn't 'tell'. Mr. Z as the 'cool' teacher was someone that everyone liked. These boys were entering puberty and discovering & questioning their sexuality and his actions were confusing. But, that does not mean he did not touch their private parts in an inappropriate manner. Mr. Z the 'cool' teacher told them it was an accident. Some of these boys don't even like each other and were from two different classes and age groups so despite what the defense said these boys were not talking to each other about their experiences and they didn't know these 'accidents' happened to the others until the news broke. Why didn't they tell their parents...bottom line they were embarrassed and they trusted Mr. Z and his word. Why were the pants kept from Sept. to December, because they weren't...it was from December before Christmas break to mid-January. The pants weren't ripped, the clasps were broken. Whether parents ' stand to make a pretty penny out of this' is a charge against the parents that is unfounded. You sound more like a Escondido School official trying to shame the parents into not suing. Bottom line the Rincon administrators and the Escondido School District did not handle this situation by their own standards and directives. Administrators and other teachers by their admission stood by and watched his horseplay with the boys, even though it states in the book of rules 'no horseplay'. If it were your child you would be upset, too. Yet, no decision has been made by any parent whether to pursue the matter furhter.

Been there wrote on Jul 20, 2006 12:04 AM:To: TO 'SAD FOR ALL & THAT'S THE SORT: Perhaps you missed the lengthly trial. Having been in court, I witnessed the prosectution put several of the boys on the stand and heard them testify that they did indeed talk to eachother about it before Pete was arrested. In fact, one boy testifed that 3 of the "victims" were best friends. Another kid victim testified that he contacted the prosecutor only after talked to his neighbor, who was already a victim. When this kid testified in court and it became evident that he never even interacted with Pete or had him as a teacher, despite claiming daily physical interactions with Pete during math.

Roberto wrote on Jul 20, 2006 8:26 AM:Not one of us knows the specifics of this very serious case. 15 years to life when murder carries the same penalty tells me the system is broke and cannot sustain itself. Even the Judge's discretion was taken away through the legislative process. This another reason to get rid of public education and give parents vouchers so we won't have to pay for these outlandish settlements comming down the pike IMO.

Hope it never happens to you wrote on Jul 20, 2006 8:58 AM:To Sad for all It is easy for one who is not in that circle to think that those kids did not have the attention of the parents. Do you know any of those kids? do you know what kind of people they are? ... what is sad is that people like you make a judgement without even knowing what type of relationship these kids have with their parents/family.... I hope that if you have a son/daughter/grandkids nothing ever happens to them. Don't think it could NEVER happen to you

FACT is.... wrote on Jul 20, 2006 9:19 AM:To Been there... The FACT is An ADULT was a witness of Ziskin having his hand in one of the boys pants bottom line is: that is WRONG!! math does not require a hand down your pants.

To 'been there' wrote on Jul 20, 2006 9:52 AM:To clarify...yes, at the preliminary ONE boy did come forward AND after his testimony the charges pertaining to him were dropped. The other boys there was NO evidence provided only innuendos that they talked about their circumstances before going to an official. If you remember when one boy was read off names he could only say he knew 3 of the 5 boys names read, but he did not 'hang' with them. There were innuendos also that these were bad boys and trouble makers, acedemically challenged. Only evidence provided was one boy had authority problems and one boy there was evidence of elementry school (1st and 4th grade)offenses. Nothing else was proved against the other boys. And, if being academically challenged in math automatically makes you a liar then I guess 60% of civilization is lying 100% of the time. Yes, I was at the prelim & the trial and heard ALL the truth. THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY, NO LIES TOLD EXCEPT BY PETER ZISKIN. APPARENTLY, YOU WERE NOT LISTENING IF YOU WERE THERE.

To 'Roberto' wrote on Jul 20, 2006 10:05 AM:Your kids would not be any safer in a private school if that school allowed inappropriate touching. It is not the public education that is at fault it is the public accepting that it is okay for a child to be touched in his private areas indiscrimately by an adult with no consequences. "Fries" says he wrestles with boys at his Sunday School...we as adults have to be alert in every aspect of our child's life to how they are being treated and 'played' with. What may be okay for two boys of equal age to wrestle and touch as the age differential increases, the older one must use common sense and good judgement, curtailing his touch. Would a man diapering his son at 1 year, expect to be able to pull his puberty age son's pants down and add baby powder to his genitals? COMMON SENSE & ADULT JUDGEMENT TELLS YOU NO.

Harry wrote on Jul 20, 2006 10:53 AM:Roberto felt that something was wrong with the system when the penalty for child molestation is the same as that for murder. The chances of re- offending are much greater for the child molester, and therefore,society needs greater protection. I am not commenting on this case, I don't know the details, but I advocate life without possibility of parole for child sexual abuse. (There are a couple of catagories of offenders that might not warrent life imprisonment as they are more responsive to sex offender treatment--but a teacher innappropriately touching his students in a public place wouldn't be one of them. That is very high risk behavior.) We need to protect our children.

To 'been there' wrote on Jul 20, 2006 12:00 PM:You may have 'been' there but you brain wasn't. Turn up your hearing aide and listen to the truth. Each boys case was similar but, not the same. Defense tried to make them the same, but if one listened times & movements were different. It took courage for the boys to stand and give their testimony. Courage apparently, Pete didn't have to testify for himself rather than the many mis-guided family and friends.

PK wrote on Jul 20, 2006 1:47 PM:I am completely appalled by this entire case. Every article I have read shows that he was in no way trying to molest these boys. I also find it extremely upsetting that these poor boys are being forced to go through the emotions of being molested because it is being forced down their throats and nothing actually happened. The parents and DA should be deeply ashamed of themselves. I hope that the appeal goes through quickly and this poor man gets a new jury that is not made up of a bunch of scared idiots.

CM wrote on Jul 20, 2006 4:51 PM:CM to PK ... Seriously PK how much do you know of the jury? how much do you know of these kids?.... NOTHING ! isn't it amazing that your so called idiots of a jury were some TEACHERS. He put his hand under there pants touched there privates skin to skin.. IT WAS WRONG!!!! If it was your kid you wouldn't think he was a poor man would you? The only idiotic thing here is your IGNORANCE!

To 'PK' wrote on Jul 20, 2006 4:56 PM:Why is it that the only 'idiots' are those that believe this pervert is quilty? No boy was 'forced' to testify...they willingly went to the stand and told the truth. Be appalled all you want...bottom line..Goodbye to Peter Ziskin, it is time to take out the trash. The DA and the police who investigated are our heroes. They did an excellent job and now you don't have to worry about your children tonight.

To NC Times wrote on Jul 20, 2006 5:29 PM:Please post all the messages that have been submitted. I do not see some of the comments that were submitted this morning to bring more balance to the debate. It is extremely abvious that NC Time is taking sides on this story and this Blog. Shame on you. I ask that you stop this before your biased is exposed further.

To PK wrote on Jul 20, 2006 5:36 PM:May I borrow you children this weekend to teach them some math or history? I'm a good person and I swear I will not harm them, the worst that might happen might be that I might stick my hand down their pants but it will not be based on sexual gratification. That's what I thought...Shame on you for making a comment without being close to the case - it's called ignorance.

To PK wrote on Jul 20, 2006 5:41 PM:PK, you're on the wrong Blog. You need to login to the Denial.Ignorance.KnowNothingAboutTheCase.com

To PK wrote on Jul 20, 2006 6:37 PM:I agree with you 100%. These parents are horrible. When their son's came to them, after finally working up the courage, and told them a respected teacher in their community put his hands down thier pants they should have handled it the old fashioned way. They should not have believed them. They should have told them they must be mistaken. "Mr Z would never do that!"--- it worked so well for all those boys fondled/sodomized by their Priests. These boys would have gotten over it. They eventually would have healed. They should have been made to feel ashamed by their accusations. You are right! SHAME on these parents for loving and believing in their boys. And shame on the DA and Detectives for doing their jobs. They should have waited until Mr Z had oral sex with one of them. They caught him too early. It's all their faults! The damage that has been done to these boys is unbelievable. Now they think it is okay to stand up and tell the truth. Now they'll never grow up to be wonderful men like Mr Z. And then I close with, you are a fool PK. And I hope a child you love is never hurt in this manner, because I believe you would fail them.

To "Do you want fries with that" wrote on Jul 20, 2006 6:46 PM:Thank you for recognizing your calling is at McDonalds. If you cannot tell the difference between you and Mr Ziskin. If you have not enough common sense to keep your hands OUT of a boys pants, like him. Then please, stay away from our children.

Political agenda wrote on Jul 21, 2006 6:52 AM:I think this whole trial was a sham by the DA to further her own political career. The investigators convinced the boys that they were molested, even though not one had said anything to anyone about the roughhousing that had been going on for years. The Judges comments were very telling. The jury blew it and convicted an innocent man. If I were a teacher in California I would now be looking for a new career because I wouldn't want to have to worry about false charges sending you to jail for life for just doing your job.

Jon wrote on Jul 21, 2006 8:11 AM:Hey maybe we should set him free on 5 years probation because he's a first time offender! Just like what Judge James Warren did for Sherri Ann Smith. For those that don't know, Sherri killed 1 person and severly injured another while she was driving drunk. She got off easy because the judge said she was a first time offender and was very remorseful!!! Whether this man molested those students or not, his life will be screwed either direction he goes (free or imprisoned)! I want to be a teacher one day and when I do become one, I'll put in the syllabus "everyone must keep one arm's lenght away from me"!

My thoughts-Penalties wrote on Jul 21, 2006 9:02 AM:Over the years molesting children has been a hidden secret in families and society didn't want to hear about it. If the law found out about them it was usually a minor offense with a slap on the hand and parole. Some 45 years ago we had a teacher that used to invite boys over to his house, get them drunk and tried some things. When the boys came forward, teacher was sent off to Germany to teach our soldiers kids. 20 years ago when I arrested a man who was exposing himself to mothers & their children in the corner of our store the DA at the time let him go to Colorado (with his family of two young girls). Then the tide began to turn. The People started to stand up and say 'No, more'. We wanted the stricter laws and punishments for the predators of our children. And, our California Assembly heard us. Every teacher goes through as part of their training how to interact properly with their charges. What is proper and what is improper. They are put on notice - step over this line and there will be consequences. Mr. Z was counseled by an administrator that what he saw was improper and may lead to a reprimand or worst. He chose to ignore this man's advice and now he must suffer the consequences of his improper, inappropriate, and illegal actions. KUDOS TO THE DA, DDA, AND INVESTIGATORS IN THIS CASE FOR UPHOLDING THE LAW.

TO 'JON' wrote on Jul 21, 2006 9:42 AM: The key word here is that she was remorseful...no remorse only denial and excuses from Peter Ziskin side. In any event laws need to be changed to meet the crime. The DA's office and investigators can only do what is allowed by law. If you feel Shem's punishment should be more (and I do to) then your legislator needs to be contacted. Unfortunately, in their youth they probably drove drunk (as maybe many of us and maybe still are) and don't see it as a 'big' crime. Laws and punishments are made by the People who care and if your legislator is indifferent to your pleas, then change legislators. IN your chosen field of profession just use common sense...don't put your hands down your students pants.

PK wrote on Jul 21, 2006 9:58 AM:A witch-hunt was traditionally a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, which could lead to a witchcraft trial involving the accused person. Today such events are recognised as a type of moral panic. On a general basis, the term may also denote the persecution of a perceived enemy (commonly socially non-conformist groups) with extreme prejudice and disregard of actual guilt or innocence. This is exactly what happened to this poor teacher. A moral panic occured where a large group of people were convinced that any kind of touching (accidental or intentional) consistuted molesting and therefore the perpetrator must be hung. Thank God we no longer live in a time when an angry mob can string up anybody they choose or this poor man would be dead. Question to all of those who felt it necessary to attack me, should I seek counseling for your verbal abuse, or just file a lawsuit? Oh, did I misunderstand your intentions or were you intentionally trying to cause me emotional harm? Some day, you all will see the consequences of raising children in such a protected and catered manner and this country will really suffer for it.

TO 'PK' wrote on Jul 21, 2006 11:39 AM:If common sense ideas cause you 'emotional harm' (all I see in post to you) then maybe you do need to see a doctor; apparently, you suffer from low-self esteem, with authority issues. If we don't protect our children who will? Obviously, not you. This 'poor teacher' got what he deserved for his inappropriate, illegal (so say 12 jurors of his peers) actions.

TO 'Political agenda' wrote on Jul 21, 2006 11:46 AM:If protecting the chikdren of this city is a political agenda then KUDOS TO THE DA & INVESTIGATORS. No one put workds in any boys mouth...they told the truth. Mistake Pete made was picking boys old enough that could converse and protect themselves. Not only a pervert, but a stupid one.

Al wrote on Jul 21, 2006 12:21 PM:Ziskin got what he deserved. Enjoy prison.

To PK wrote on Jul 21, 2006 12:27 PM:Besides your nonsense and ignorant remarks, If you think our replies resulted in 'verbal abuse' to you, try reading your own comments. I get the sense your making these thoughtless comments simply to stir-up-the-pot. I ask all those participating in this dialogue not to respond to PK - simply ignore PK. PK's intelligence (or lack of) speaks for itself.

PK wrote on Jul 21, 2006 1:48 PM:The only comment that I can see I have made to be offensive would be calling the jurors scared idiots and for that I appologize, it was brought out of reading all of the other blogs. Other than that, I feel I only expressed my opinion, of which I have every right to have. However, practically every comment against what I said was a direct insult towards me. What do I take from that? Those who feel this teacher is a horrible person and should be locked up forever and hopefully killed in prison, allow their emotions to rule their decisions. Those who are questioning this trial, make their decisions based on facts. Think about it... You don't have to respond to me, it won't hurt my feelings, I just thought it would be nice for another opinion to be heard, as that is what this blog and this country is about.

Wait until it happens to you wrote on Jul 21, 2006 4:30 PM: PK, you said it so well. I, too, blindly thought all persons convicted of child molestation were guilty until it happened to a friend of mine. No longer does any truth or justice apply - it becomes a chess game, where the stakes are high, and the prosecutor has the advantage. The accused is silenced by his attorneys, his friends and family denounced as being blindly loyal or in denial. Only when this prosecutor finally takes on a case so blatantly false, so offensive to our sense of justice (have you already forgotten Dale Akiki & Michael Crowe) that a public outcry ensues, will this broken system be exposed. Until then, we'll continue to see the uninformed reactive public grab their pitchforks, light their torches, and hunt their monsters.

Overcoming the ignorance of the masses... wrote on Jul 21, 2006 6:19 PM:It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have. James Baldwin (1924-87), U.S. author. I am grateful to the judge for seeing the inequity of this case and still respecting the voice of the people. I trust that, soon, the 'people' will quiet their voices long enough to hear the sense voiced in the concern of Ziskin supporters. It is easy to take the idea that no teacher should rough house with kids and run with it. If they shouldn't rough house, we reason, then the only ones who do rough house are those who are perverted. Does that mean that when a middle school (or any)student comes to a teacher in sadness, s/he should not offer a hug? Does it mean that when a child needs an ear, we can never stop what we are doing and listen privately? Does it mean that when a student emails a teacher about something unrelated to school, the teacher is not to respond? Well, yes. If a teacher doesn't ever want to expose himself to litigation, that is exactly what it means--and with Pete's conviction, it means that more than ever before. The story has been changed over time from brushing with the back of the hand to fondling of genitals (which was never even mentioned in court). Just as a story of hugging could easily become the rubbing of one's back or one's bottom, or feeling a bra strapt, etc. Or a story of listening could turn into any other thing that might happen behind a closed door. No matter what the politicians tell you, there is far more to teaching than opening a text book and cramming facts down a kid's throat. It's about building rapport. And teachers are always looking for ways to do this. Don't even start with "molesting isn't rapport." Those who want to say that will never understand. Fine. But for those who can stop their panic and think...please understand, this was a first year teacher--subbing doesn't come close to the real thing--who found a way to build rapport with a lot of kids. There are many other students of Ziskin who were wrestled with who do not for a moment consider that any sexual behavior was present. The bigger impact here is that the system of caring for our children (both privately and publicly) must become even more sterile than it already is, if teachers want any modicum of security. And those of you who think this is a good thing just don't get it...so don't bother trying. The rest of us will continue to work toward the truth.

To ALL wrote on Jul 21, 2006 6:31 PM:I don't mind responding to thoughtful perspectives or those that perhaps have some merit in their view points. But people like 'Grandparent', 'Teacher', and 'PK' simply do not accept the fact that for a teacher to put his hands down into a kids pants is simply wrong. One time could be accidental, 27 times (especially after being warned by other teachers not to horseplay), it's simply wrong and fundamentallly unethical. If you can not accept this simple fact, there is no point is continuing this dialogue. I encourage everyone that DOES think that this behavior is unacceptable - anywhere, especialy in school grounds, to stop commenting on this Blog - NO MORE comments from us here. Let's simply let those in denail release their fustrations all they want on this whiteboard. This is my last comment. It's no longer worth my time to debate with the ingorant. The earth revolves around the sun even if you percevie the earth to be quite, peaceful and still through out the night. And, No, I'll not be able to see your responses, as I will not login anymore, and I encourage everyone to do the same - Justice has prevailed and it had the last word. Nothing else can be said at this point.

To To All wrote on Jul 21, 2006 8:36 PM:I don't think you can hold out and not login anymore. And Justice hasn't had the last word yet...in America, Justice takes more than a single case or a single sentence.

PK wrote on Jul 21, 2006 9:12 PM:I certainly hope they have all listened and followed "To ALL" and hopefully the angry mob has taken their noose and pitchforks and have gone home. Fortunately for Mr. Ziskin, this is not the end of the story and I will pray that he receives a speedy and fair appeal and is able to find some way to move on in his life. I hope that it brings some kind of comfort to his friends and family to know that there are people out there not closely involved that are on his side. While I agree that he shouldn't have wrestled with the boys in such a manner (more so to protect himself than for any other reason) it does not make him a child molester.

Think about it wrote on Jul 22, 2006 10:24 AM:A boy goes to a teacher for comfort when his aunt dies; gets comforted...only to later have teacher put his hand down his pants during a 'wrestling' match. A boy realizing that teacher in touching his privates is wrong and tries to avoid teacher only to be grabbed outside classromm and dragged back inside. A boy goes into classroom after school to take a simple spelling test and is wrestled to the ground; when he feels teachers hands in his pants he says, NO an leaves the room (last incident happened same day teacher's aide saw same teacher with hands down another boys pants). Is this normal behaviour? The judge did not say the teacher was innocent. Infact the judge said he got a fair trial; both sides were represented by competent attorneys; and, the jury made an equitable decission. Yes, he was concerned that he did not have the option of applying a sentence he felt just...but, in turn he never said what he would feel was just. In truth he could have assessed more except that the District Attorney was only requesting the minimum (15 to life). No matter how you twist it everything the judge said was to prevent a sucessful appeal. No matter how you twist it and want to blame the DA, the investigators, the parents or society's hysterics for Ziskin's problems...there is only one to blame...Mr. Z for crossing over the line of decency. I too will sign off this blog...it is impossible to educate the ignorant who have no care for children.

To PK wrote on Jul 22, 2006 11:40 AM:We're not angry...just fed up with the betrayal of our children...the loss of trust...Remember the Samantha Runyon case of Orange County and how the predator was acquitted which by your estimation would have been fine because it was based on two little girls testimony; just a year before he kidnapped, raped and murdered Samantha. As I see it, this teacher was caught in the act before he was able to damage a child more severally.

Rambo wrote on Jul 22, 2006 4:14 PM:This so-called teacher should be jailed for life. If he put his hands down my son's pants, he wouldn't have any hands left! You libertals who feel sorry for this molester of innocent children are as sick as he is. I am beginning to wonder about are teachers -- do they ever teach any more or do they just look for easy sexual prey? I made my fortune selling bunkbeds on the mean streets of Watts and Harlem, and I would gladly part with that fortune to put predators like this fake teacher in a prison cell occupied by a guy named Big Bubba who would be his constant companion for the rest of his life. Rambo blood and guts

Witch hunt it is not wrote on Jul 23, 2006 9:22 AM:In today's Union Tribune it shows a paster playfully wrestling (headlock) with a youth. In attending the Rincon grauduation I saw many teachers shoulder hugging, frontal hugging & back slapping; between the picture of play or the graduation well wishing not once did I think something sexual was happening and not once did I see a teacher pick up a boy by the crotch to play or congratulate him. Once again adult common sense tells you what is right or wrong. Over protective, hysteric witch hunt, no.

Realist wrote on Jul 23, 2006 9:40 PM:Not one of these kids has had counceling so I guess they really are a mess. The guy's wife that left him over this is a very lucky lady.

To Rambo wrote on Jul 23, 2006 9:47 PM:Ziskin is innocent and you are stupid because you don't know anything about the case. Go back to Watts and Harlem and give them back their money and tell them you are sorry that you screwed them in the first place, or better yet leave the heavy thinking to someone else and stay home and watch Oprah.

To Witch Hunt it is not: wrote on Jul 24, 2006 7:51 AM:"That is exactly the type of inflammatory embellishment that has Ziskin supporters angry. He never picked anyone up by the crotch. He grabbed them by the waistband. And that Pastor and those teachers had better be careful, because in the hands of the DA, the contact that you witnessed could get turned into an erotic memory that could be used later in a sexual fantasy. Adult common sense has little to do with it. No, he shouldn't have wrestled with the kids, but no, he is no child molester.

TO 'TO RAMBO' wrote on Jul 24, 2006 8:02 AM: APPARENTLY YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CASE EITHER OR YOU JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM THIS PREDATOR. THE 'STUPID' ONE WAS ZISKIN, ATTACKING BOYS OLD ENOUGH TO STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES.

Roberto wrote on Jul 24, 2006 11:20 AM:Being a male in this society pof ours means that you must avoid contact with children. If you are acussed of any crime from sexual harrasement to this alleged henious crime, chances are you may be punished even if your not guilty. Its that way it is. We need to privatize education in order to reduce our liability as taxpayers. These families will sue big time and we all get to pay. On another note men with any kind of a brain should avoid becoming teachers due to the potential liabilies IMHO.

surf bum wrote on Jul 24, 2006 1:18 PM:He got 15 to life because he was white. Another race would have gotten off.

PK wrote on Jul 24, 2006 3:42 PM:To the person who said they weren't angry, just fed up, I know it doesn't matter and you will never accept it, but the world will never be 100% safe for our children and to be honest, I wouldn't want to live in that world. It is my worst fear that something bad should happen to my children and it is more likely to happen to them because they are girls. However, I realize that there is no way to make the world 100% safe, but instead teach my children how to protect themselves. There are sick and perverted people out there, but if you knew anything about psychology, they are that way because of genetics or something traumatic in their childhood, neither of which happened to Mr. Ziskin. While I agree that his behavior may have been inappropriate, I don't feel the world is any safer having him in prison. While "Minority Report" was a facinating movie, we can not jail criminals until they have actually committed the crime and it is sad that innocent people are imprisoned because we "think" they may do something bad.

to roberto wrote on Jul 24, 2006 6:13 PM:It wouldn't surprise me if this isn't just one more tactic for those who would like to privatize education. The San Diego project made a goal 15 years ago to drive public education to bankruptcy through litigation. They used to go after school board members, journalism teachers, text book choices, and curriculum. This is probably just a new angle. Privitazation of education isn't the answer to San Diego's problems. Please don't use this case as a crusade for that. Having said that, I would caution the public to keep an eye on the further activity of the DA's office. Is this just another attempt to weaken the system that keeps the dream of democracy alive? Also, to surf bum--don't comment again until the ludes wear off.

To PK wrote on Jul 24, 2006 7:01 PM:re: the world will never ne 100% safe for our children and to be honest, I wouldn't want to live in that world." Why not? What would be wrong with that? I would pick that world any day.

ps PK wrote on Jul 24, 2006 7:02 PM:I would love that world.

PK wrote on Jul 25, 2006 9:33 AM:Because with that world comes a total and complete lack of freedom. With that world comes the inability to be your own person and have your own personality. With that world comes the ability to persecute before a crime is committed and the imprisonment of thousands of people who have done nothing wrong, but in the opinion of those who rule may do something wrong. There would be no diversity, no opinions and no freedom to live your life and raise your children the way you desire. I am not saying that I am against the concept, but I prefer to live in the real world and teach my children how to survive rather than shelter them from things that they will have face as adults. Think about it, in that world, children would not be allowed to ride bicycles, dirt motorcycles or skateboards, teenagers would not be allowed to drive or gather together anywhere without constant adult supervision. You would be told when and what to feed your children, when to put them to bed, how to dress them, etc. Is that the kind of world that you want to live in?

esteban wrote on Jul 25, 2006 11:55 AM:PK...what the heck are you talking about?!??!? What does riding a motorcycle have to do with a world safe from molestors!??!?! Plus, I would love to imprison someone based on what he might do in the future. That person's past would be the biggest indicator of his future actions. That would be great!!!!!

PK wrote on Jul 25, 2006 1:35 PM:Esteban, do you really think that if we were to live in a world where our children are safe we would limit it to molestor's? We would want our children to never come into harm, accidental or intentional. Plus, based your statement, Mr. Ziskin should not be imprisoned right now because he has no history to indicate any pre-disposition to molest children. Would you really want to live in a world where people are imprisoned based on assumptions? Who would have the right to make those decisions? Also, most molestors were molested as children, so it wouldn't be bad enough that something bad happened to them, but then they are forced to spend the rest of their lives in prison not for something they did, but because of something that was done to them? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me.

To 'PK' wrote on Jul 25, 2006 1:37 PM:You can only teach your children so much to help them 'survive'. I think for the past 20 years parents have been teaching their kids that their private parts (i.e. area covered by swim trunks) is off limits to others. You can teach them that if they feel uncomfortable to leave a situation. But, there is no way you can totally eliminate a child's natural instinct to trust those adults that are in an authority position. I just hope your girls never have to face the dark side of society...you have a false sense of what can be taught...and you probably won't believe them...especially, if it is a family member, a friend or teacher.

PK wrote on Jul 25, 2006 3:40 PM:Regardless what you think, I would believe them. I am not saying that I don't believe these boys, I am saying that I think it has been blown way out of proportion by their parents. There is a huge difference between accidently touching and full on groping. Thanks again for usual emotional and personal attack. I just don't get why my differing opinion makes you feel it is all right to attack me personally. Since I feel that he did not do this to get himself off, it makes me a bad person and my children are definitely going to have bad things happen to them and I won't believe them? I have a right to my opinion about this article without being classified a bad parent.

To PK wrote on Jul 26, 2006 10:27 AM:PK I agree with you that you have to make an opinion, but I wonder why is it that you feel people don't have the right to "attack" you when you have no idea what has actually happen in the lives of these parents and kids?.... What right do you have to say that the parents have blown this way out of proportion? As a parent that you say you are ( Just pretend and put the shoe on you) if this were to have happen to you, you would not think of it that way. You have no idea what it was like for these parents to find out what had happen to their kids. Do you honestly think that these parents wanted to have there kids go through something like this? No, I don't think so. I think unless you have ever had something like this happen to you then you can speak about the kids and the parents, unless of course you know them personally and are sure they are just a disfunctional family???? but I bet you don't know them. Good luck to you and your girls take care of them and I pray that nothing like this EVER happens to you or your loved ones.... and this is not an "attack" on you or I classify you as a bad parent. (Because if anything I bet you are a good parent) it's just for you/anyone to be aware that this kind of stuff doesn't just happen to "Other" people it can happen to the ones we love most.

So True... wrote on Jul 26, 2006 12:16 PM:I think there are some interesting universal messages to take from this. First of all, any of these things can happen to any of us. I saw a show last night where a young man was sentenced to 40 years in prison after his friend dreamed that the two of them had killed a guy. Even though the accuser didn't have any real details about the case until the police filled him in. Even though there was no physical evidence--lots of DNA at the crime scene, but none of it matched the so-called perpetrators. Still, a jury convicted the kid. So being falsely accused and jailed could happen to any of us, really. At the same time, any of us could be the victim of crime or have a close loved one be the victim of a crime,and we will want answers. Hopefully, if or when we are, we will not all rush to judgement. Hopefully, if something like this ever happens to one of my kids, I will have taught them well enough to come to me right away and not wait until after authorities have talked with them. So many people keep saying "what if it happened to you?" Well, what if you or someone you cared about was falsely accused, convicted, and jailed? If it were me, I hope there would be people like PK to be a voice for me, even while being attacked.

To "PK" wrote on Jul 26, 2006 12:41 PM:In past staTements you have made comments: WHY, BECAUSE THEY CHOSE TO BELIEVE THE BOYS? HERE IT SEEMS YOU ARE CALLING THE BOYS LIARS. AND BY WHAT STANDARD WOULD 'INTENTIONAL' TOUCHING OF PRIVATE AREAS NOT BE MOLESTING? 'WRESTLING' AND INTENTIONALLY TOUCHING PRIVATE AREAS, DOES AND ANY WRTLING OR 'HORSEPLAY' IS ALSO AGAINST SCHOOL POLICY HOW DO YOU KNOW? WITH CONCERN FOR THE FAMILY WE HAVE INTENTIONALLY NOT BROUGHT THIS POSSIBLE & MORE LIKELY PROBABLY ASOPECT UP. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN 'ACCIDENTLY TOUCHING' BOYS AS FOUND BY JURY SOME 17 TIMES? 15 OF THOSE TIMES COMING AFTER TWO BOYS TOLD HIM HE TOUCHED THEIR BALLS. AND IF YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PRELIM AND TRIAL YOU WOULD FIND THAT IN SOME CASES IT WAS 'FULL ON GROPING' OR THE CROTCH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE PANTS. YOU MAY HAVE YOUR OPINION, BUT IT IS BASED ON SHODDY INFORMATION AND THAT IS WHY YOUR COMMENTS ARE QUESTIONED. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A VERY THIN SKIN AND TAKE OFFENSE TO EVERYTHING ANYONE TRIES TO EXPLAIN TO YOU. OR, YOU EITHER KNOW THE ZISKINS AND ARE TRYING TO COVER YOUR RELATIONSHIP AND TRYING TO PASS ON THEIR LIES ABOUT THE CASE. As a parent I too hope it never happens to your family..if that wish for their safety is derogatory and somehow offesive to you (as apparently other like statements have been to you), I apologize now.

To so True wrote on Jul 27, 2006 10:34 AM:You need to know about that case, there is so much that goes on that the jury or even us don't know. For example on the case of the boys You can't sit there and say for sure that the authorities spoke to these kids first... You don't know the reason why the parents of the family friend was unable to testify.... not even the jury knew. It is so easy to jump to judgment without knowing actual fact. But you are right there are some people serving a sentence that is not deserved but NOT in this case.

To 'so true' wrote on Jul 27, 2006 7:21 PM:There was no rush to judgement. Like 'to so true' pointed out to you unless you were there from the beginning you don't know what transpired. There has been great hupala about the great conspiracy, or that hysterics brought it all on or charges of investigators misconduct. During and after the trial was completed and in support of the parents and boys many parents came forward to the victim's parents to tell them that during the police investigation and once it hit the news, they had thought their child might have been a victim and brought their kids to the investigators. After the investigators talked to the child judgements were made that either no offense took place or the child didn't want to talk about it. No boy was forced to testify and no boy was led to say something he didn't feel was the truth.

So true wrote on Jul 28, 2006 6:22 AM:And that is the other universal truth...as people, we tend to find a story and stick to it. Neither side is going to budge on this one, at least not any more than they have already. The victims' families and friends are certain that Ziskin is a crazed child molester who deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life, the friends and family of Ziskin are willing to admit that contact was inappropriate but not sexual in nature. The final line of "To So True..." says 'no boy was forced to testify and no boy was led to say something he didn't feel was the truth.' I don't doubt this, and it looks like the Ziskin camp in general doesn't doubt it. But twelve and thirteen year old boys can 'feel' that something is the truth when it really isn't. And "convicted serial child molester' is a huge label to carry for the rest of one's life if, in fact, the 'predator' was just unwisely playing. There should be room to find some common ground here, but the two sides are at a impasse. I'm just delighted to see a few bloggers who are able to put together sentences that are actually coherent thought. (Rambo, surf bum, and the guy who uses all caps are excluded from that list, obviously.)

To So True wrote on Jul 28, 2006 2:05 PM:You are right no side will budge, ... Yes the Ziskin family admits to the inappropriate contact but it is hard to understand how they could think that going under the skin can possibly be appropriate... would it be for you?? as far as the boys families you can't speak for them or at least all of them you can't be for certain all of them want Mr. Z to rot in prison.. .. Unless of course you have spoken to each parent. Unfortunately if you committ and are accused of a crime there is a name that comes with it. And Mr. Z had a choice and choose to stick his hands under the boys boxers/underpants and touch a private part of the boys that should not be done.

TommyTom wrote on Jul 28, 2006 3:04 PM:OK - Let me get this correct: In California you can get probation if you have sex with a student and bare his child, but you get 15 to life for molestation. (Which I don't think happened) Hmmmmmm I've known Peter for 22 years, he was at my wedding, has had dinner at my house, been alone with countless children over the years and nothing bad has occurred. My understanding is that part of the law he was convicted under requires 'intent of sexual gratification'. Why no testimony about him meeting (or molesting) students outside of a classroom when the door was open? What kind of child molester wouldn't at least close the door to the classroom to conceal his actions? Hmmmmmm Tom, from Boulder CO

To TommyTom wrote on Jul 28, 2006 3:49 PM:Thank god for those kids.. maybe they were not Peters type. And it doesn't matter if you think it happened or not he was convicted he is has to register as a child molester... He did it !

To 'TommyTom' wrote on Jul 28, 2006 5:27 PM:Mr. Z was comvicted of multple molestations with multiple victims...that is why the 15 yrs to life. You may have known Peter for 22 years...but, do you really know him? Apparently, not.

From another long time friend wrote on Jul 28, 2006 9:04 PM:Yes, we really do know him. That's why we can be so confident that he is innocent.

The blame game wrote on Jul 29, 2006 8:30 AM:It's always someone elses fault. Can one man explain to me why a man would continue to 'wrestle' with boys after being told twice that you had touched their 'balls'? Would not a normal man with no unseemly thoughts have been embarrassed or appalled and would have altered their 'wrestling' technique if they were even going to continue to wrestle? Why would you wrestle boys to the ground pull up their shirts and give them 'raspberries' on the stomachs? Mr. Ziskin got caught with his 'hands in the cookie jar' so to speak. It was not the aides fault-she didn't make him do it; it was not the boys fault; it was not the parents fault; it was not the investigaors fault, and it was not the DDA's fault for upholding the law. He was convicted of 17 lewd acts on a minor child under the age of 14 yrs. He is not inncocent. It is time for Mr. Z "to step up and take responsibility for HIS choices and to be responsibile for HIS actions" (a quote from him in October, 2004 to his class & parents). And, to let his poor family and friends off the hook so they don't have to go to their graves with the false belief that he is innocent.

To "The Blame Game" wrote on Jul 29, 2006 12:31 PM:You can rest comfortably in your conviction. He is in jail. We who believe him will continue to do what we feel we must. There must be some satisfaction to you that we aren't as comfortable as you. Inappropriate? Yes. Irresponsible? Perhaps. Lacking common sense? Sometimes. Child molester? No way.

To 'To the blame game" wrote on Jul 30, 2006 11:12 PM:I do rest comfrotably with my conviction that Peter Ziskin thankfully got caught before he graduated to more serious crimes. I rest comfortably that as a convicted child molester he will not be able to harm another child.

To "To the blame game" wrote on Jul 31, 2006 7:41 AM:So your answer to the is 'lack of common sense

To "To the blame game' wrote on Jul 31, 2006 7:51 AM:So your answer to the question why would a normal man continue to touch inappropriately is 'lack of common sense'. Why, won't you answer the question, because you can't. If you were to answer it with true reasoning that would mean your friend as you knew him had 'died'that fall/winter of 2004/2005. If he were a man leading police on a high speed chase and got out of the car as it stopped and started shooting at the police and the police returned fire killing him...would you then say but he was a good guy and it was a 'lack of common sense', 'he made a mistake', 'his actions were inappropriate? Either way your friend as you knew him is dead.

TommyTom wrote on Jul 31, 2006 8:00 AM:Still no discussion, (and no testimony in the cas) about INTENT. The law requires intent, actions may have been innapropriate, but I can't see where the intent was. Nothing done in a closed-door classroom, nothing done outside of the school building, no kiddy porn on personal or school computer (no porn of ANY type in his posession) no indication anywhere, whatsoever, that the actions were taken with the intent of sexual gratification. 15 to life is just wrong.

To TommyTom wrote on Jul 31, 2006 8:29 AM:Like it was said before let someone borrow your children for some math and let some "wrestling" go on and oh yes oops the hand slipped not once not twice, oh gosh who knows how many times.... nah!! no INTENT!!!! grow up TommyTom INTENT is there. Let's not forget one of the boys did get aroused by Mr. Z and he countinued to touch him and told him not to say anything otherwise he would be in trouble!! Sorry you are upset that this happen to your friend but he had choices he got gratification there was intent.

To 'TommyTom' wrote on Jul 31, 2006 10:02 AM:The aide testified to opening the door to enter Ziskin's room at lunch time to tell him she would not be there later. That implys to me that it was a 'closed-door classroom' at the time she entered. His repeated inappropriate/molestation of the boys shows intent. Still no answer to 'blame game's' question...Why, would a so-called normal man continue to touch boys inappropriately? You are ignoring the question because you can't reasonably answer it to even your own satisfaction.

We haven't ignored the question wrote on Aug 1, 2006 6:52 AM:Actually, we get it. We just can't seem to explain to you that a grown man could enjoy wrestling with kids in a kid way without sexual intent. One day, at least some of these boys will realize what they've done, and they will hate you for supporting them in their delusion. In the mean time, you've begun to bore me. Oh, and let's not put too much weight on the words of the aide--she thought he was molesting a kid, but she walked away? She didn't report anything for SIX days? She was thirty steps from the principal's office and she is bound by law to report suspected crimes against children in 72 hours or less...what kind of a person walks away from a child being molested? Her words are completely meaningless in this banter.

To We haven't ignored wrote on Aug 1, 2006 9:03 AM:No I don't think you get it. Yes a grown up man can enojoy wrestling with kids in a kid way. But WITHOUT touching the private area! you acknowledge that he did touched the boys privates right?... you acknowledge that it was more than one boy more than one time right? you acknowledge that one boy was aroused right? hw was told and asked NOT to do it again and he ignored it...INTENT! and don't bring this on the teacher assistant. If anything she wanted to make sure and not RUSH into conclusions good for her for being brave and coming forward!!! And the boys... hopefully they can rest that they will never have to see Mr. Z again.

Just setting it straight wrote on Aug 1, 2006 12:56 PM:I acknowledge that the back of his hand may have brushed against somebody at some time. Beyond that, I think the boys embelished. I acknowledge that it was more than one kid and more than one time, but I don't believe the kids felt violated at any time of the play. I do not acknowledge that one boy was aroused, or at least if he was, I don't believe Mr. Z knew or said anything about it. I believe he may have been told to be careful that the wrestling didn't get out of hand, but I don't believe he was given a stern directive or threatened with any kind of punitive action from his administration. His INTENT was to continue building a rapport with his students in his new--and first--teaching position. You still haven't shown me anything to convince me that he was looking for or got any sexual gratification from any of this.

To Just Setting it Straight wrote on Aug 1, 2006 5:11 PM:That's good that you acknowledge all of that happen whether you believe it happen or not is understanding because he is your friend or family member. But you still have not showed me anything to convince me that he was not looking for or that he did not get sexual gratification. He did all of those things you have acknowledged to and that IS a GUILTY man. Do not touch private parts on any kid especially UNDER the pants.

To 'just setting it straight' wrote on Aug 1, 2006 5:28 PM:"His INTENT was to build rapport" so he could take the next step, which he did in arousing one child as was testified to and found to be credible by the jury and so convicted. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!!!! And, you are not stating the true facts when you say it was 'just the back of his hand'; that is not what was testified to during trial. You're right...nothing is going to convince you your friend had sexual intent...God Bless your children they are going to need it, since you are so blind to what a 'friend' might do.

TommyTom wrote on Aug 3, 2006 7:18 AM:Let me clarify: the intent that is required by California law is for the sexual gratification of one, or both, parties to the alleged abuse. (Abuser or abusee) No testimony about Mr. Z ever gaining any sexual gratification from these alleged activities. (OK to be fair a jury found that the activities took place.)....No testimony about Mr. Z ever gaining any sexual gratification from these activities, no testimony about any of the students ever gaining any sexual gratification. The "intent" burden was not met - the maximum charge should be something like unlawful touching - not sexual abuse. Give him a year a club fed and let him try to rebuild his life. Not put him in jail for the rest of his natual life when another, female teacher in california actually did get sexual gratification (in fact became pregnant and bore the child of the student/victem) and received probation.

To TommyTom wrote on Aug 3, 2006 1:34 PM:So I believe I got this right ... so if there was No gratification it was not wrong or wait he should not have gotten the time he got just a year a club fed for 17 counts ... let him rebuild his life!! Tommy Tom you are a sick man and you should be ashamed of yourself if you have kids I worry.... what about the kids oh yeah give them a year they will forget about this right??... You are just as sick as Ziskin. The LAW states that there is absolutely NO touching what so ever skin to skin.

TommyTom wrote on Aug 3, 2006 2:45 PM:I didn't attack you personally or impugn your character, lawfulness or general health. You know nothing about me, other than that I've known Pete since college. Don't attack what you don't know. I did attempt to engage in a discussion about what the tennants of the law are, how this case fits those tennants and whether or not the punishment fit the crime. I would expect the same from you on the other side of the coin. You seem to be avoiding my argument about another case in California where the female teacher became pregnant after a sexual encounter with a student and ultimately received probation. Is, as a middle-schooler would say, 'full sex' less of a crime then non-sexually gratifying touching? I think not. I happen to agree with 'Just Setting it Straight' who thinks there was embellishment on the part of the students. You and I will never know, but I do not believe the "facts" are what they appeared to be.

From Setting it Straight's kid... wrote on Aug 3, 2006 7:45 PM:Hey, I appreciate the "blessing." I have been blessed with a great mom who talks to me about everything. And I talk to her. And she makes me clean my room at least twice a week, and since she does the laundry, she would know if my jeans came home ripped. I know that if anyone ever made me feel uncomfortable, I would tell her right away--and her friend Pete doesn't scare me. If they let him out of jail tomorrow, he could come live with us. We might wrestle, but he's never "gotten off" about it (and neither have I). I know what kids can be like--once at my school--a teacher pulled up a kid's shirt to show how much his jeans were sagging. When the kid's jeans fell to the floor, he yelled that the teacher had "pants" him. And two other kids who saw it were willing to go along with the lie. In fact, they may have BELIEVED the lie. But the teacher didn't pants him. The guy was just wearing jeans that were way too saggy. Sometimes kids lie. But my mom isn't a bad parent just because she is a good friend, and I don't feel like I'm in any danger. If I did feel like I was in danger, though, I'd tell her right away. I wouldn't wait until the police started asking around. And I agree with "TommyTom"--this blog would be better if people tried to debate intelligently instead of just attack each other when they can't think of anything smart to say (although that is kind of funny in a "Real World" sort of way.)

To Tommy Tom wrote on Aug 4, 2006 2:35 PM:And You know nothing about me or those boys and what you think is wrong! you have ABSOLUTELY No idea what your friend has done to these boys. My comfort Ziskin is in jail were he belongs and until a long long day from now he will not hurt another kid again.