Post a response:
|
But thanks for admitting that your position is based upon this imaginary scenario in your head. I prefer to go by facts. OK One fact we know is that it was not 10 out of 10 victims who came forward, or were convinced to do so. I used the number 10 to simplify talking about parsimony. Of the 8 Sandusky boys listed in wikipedia, two of whom are stated to be 'unknown', 6 "came forward, or were convinced to do so" - but see the next point. The one supposedly engaged in anal intercourse in the shower and was witnessed by McQueary did not come forth. You may be wrong. "A man claiming to be the previously unknown victim of the shower incident ("Victim 2") stepped forward through his lawyers in July 2012 and stated his intentions to file a lawsuit against the university. His lawyers also released a pair of voicemails from September 2011 that were purportedly left for their client by Sandusky.[28]" But perhaps more significantly, how many more boys might have been involved with Sandusky who never even came to the attention of the prosecution? For all we know, it might be 10 out of a hundred or more. speculation, not fact - not allowed for someone stating he will only use facts, and disallow reasonable conjectures Of the "victims" who testified, did they all suddenly snap or were they gradually convinced over time and with incentives? speculation, not fact - not allowed for someone stating he will only use facts, and disallow reasonable conjectures There are may of the latter, and we have seen many cases of youth formerly willingly involved with adults reformulate their experience from something positive at the time to a negative view as abuse. Susan Clancy talks about this in The Trauma Myth. May be a fact someplace, but not known to be a fact in the present case. Former willing partners learn that adopting the victim role allows them an explanation or scapegoat for all their current and past life's failings. It buys sympathy from those around them as well. Throw in financial rewards and it becomes difficult not to succumb. speculation, not fact - not allowed for someone stating he will only use facts, and disallow reasonable conjectures Apparently Sandusky never prepared his young friends to face the discovery and interrogation scenario, something which has been referred to as "warrior training." speculation, not fact - not allowed for someone stating he will only use facts, and disallow reasonable conjectures Indeed, it takes the extraordinary person like in the book you describe (which I have not read but have placed it on my list) to be able to withstand the pressures to "disclose." Regardless of all the incentives to disclose, we have seen many such cases in the past: the teacher, scoutmaster, coach, choirmaster, psychologist, doctor beloved by all for decades suddenly are transformed into the most horrible of creatures, a "predator." speculation, not fact - not allowed for someone stating he will only use facts, and disallow reasonable conjectures. Maybe they WERE predators. All the good deeds they did over the years now were all just pure manipulation and grooming. "We can't believe it. We had no idea. He was such a nice guy" those who knew him tend to say. How does the Sandusky case not fit this scenario? The scenario may be an accurate depiction of a clever manipulator. You don't factually know differently Many aspects of the case are simply not credible. I do agree with you that these days, all underage sex is seen as exploitation, and this is even generally known by people around the age as those with whom Sandusky was involved. That just makes it more incredible that if they had been unwilling participants they would have allowed it to go on so long before speaking up. speculation, not fact - not allowed for someone stating he will only use facts, and disallow reasonable conjectures In particular, one guy claims to have been anally raped on a weekly basis for over a year, screaming in Sandusky's basement but not heard by his wife upstairs, even to the point of making the kid bleed! Yet the kid went back week after week. For a year, no less! Sorry, just not buying it. yes, but based on conjecture. Abused wives go back again and again, so why not abused boys? Human nature is complicated. You know nothing about this person's psychology. Your reaction is only based on speculation This is the first I have heard that boys were "told at a certain age that now they'd have to find new partners." Do you have a source for that, or is that just your own idea? I made it clear this was only a possibility You see this case as Jerry vs. the boys. I see it as the prosecution vs. Jerry and the boys. I think you underestimate the pressures upon one to "disclose." I've read a lot about police interrogations, such as the great John Grisham book about false murder confessions, The Innocent Man. No, I don't think I underestimate this factor at all. I know all the tricks. If there are so many Kirk Reads out there, how come we don't see any? Um, you just named an example of one. I have often wondered where are all the hordes of loyal, socially incorruptible, and selfless former loved boys (now men) who will step up and say, "I was loved as a boy and am a better person today for it"? I've seen a number of such articles, but in many cases, the younger person is protecting the older and will not talk until he is dead. And then where will he publish? It would take an extraordinary amount of courage for one take such a step, not least because it now opens him up the the charge that he got the cooties and is now a pedophile himself. Until the witch hunt dies down, it is just not going to happen. Um, Kirk Read. It happened already. Help me, people, there are more examples around, cite a few. Your scapegoating of Sandusky is wrong. It is the current system that fails to allow him or the boys to play anything other than their prescribed roles. No system can expunge free will, bravery, heroism and nonconformism. This idea is completely implausible |