<p>
</p>
<p>I am honestly puzzled as to how your friend’s story is “pertinent.” Particularly as you stated “it is clear from the victims’ testimony that they did not willingly participate.”</p>
<p>C’mon, he’s an Ivy League grad.</p>
<p>I don’t know why people are jumping on Consolation. According to the grand jury report, McQ testified to seeing anal penetration, but honest people can be wrong in what exactly they saw, and if I were in that situation I wouldn’t be spending time observing the fine details of the crime. Actual anal penetration and the Greek practice Consolation described would look the same to the fairly cursory view one would need in order to realize a little boy was being sexually assaulted. (Ugh. I resent even having to think about the different ways disgusting slimemolds sexually assault innocent children. They should have locked up this creep years ago.)</p>
<p>I hope Consolation is right. Sandusky would be just as culpable, and the little boy’s horrible ordeal would have been less bad.</p>
<p>Open curriculum does not mean that he necessary had classes on ancient Greek.</p>
<p>Look, the story brought out a crazy idea for some sort of a defense.
And even a shocking explanation of why some of the victims might not come forward.</p>
<p>I do not think cons was trying to defend S or change the nature of the crime, just passing along a very shocking take, and personal experience of the person he had lunch with.</p>
<p>We have discussed the legal and moral weaknesses of such a “defense”, but this reaction to the S story with this story came from the person C had lunch with. He chose to share that reaction and odd perspective.</p>
<p>The reason Consolation is being jumped on is that unless you believe the absolute worst of all the people involved without raising any questions or doubts, you are condoning child molestation. That’s become fairly clear in this “conversation.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not “jumping on” Consolation, I am honestly trying to understand his/her conclusions.</p>
<p>IMO it would be “less bad” to a very, very minute degree. Certainly a bit less physical trauma, but emotionally the same, and it is usually the emotional damage which is what survives for decades, if not for life.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why people are jumping on Consolation either. She/he is adding substantive observations and thoughts to the discussion</p>
<p>He was not doubting the evil nature of the act, just passing along that the other person was, technically. And wondering if such an attitude from a child or the defense would make a difference to the case somehow…</p>
<p>Obviously the only dog I have in this race is that it is not good for us to jump on each other without thinking.
Peace</p>
<p>OMG. The lawyer let his client say this on national TV?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Jerry</a> Sandusky: ‘I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped’ - NY Daily News](<a href=“http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/jerry-sandusky-i-seeking-young-person-sexual-helped-article-1.977730#ixzz1doif5MY7]Jerry”>http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/jerry-sandusky-i-seeking-young-person-sexual-helped-article-1.977730#ixzz1doif5MY7)</p>
<p>The guy is one big fat Freudian slip.</p>
<p>Sandusky thinks, or hopes, that a lot of young people will come forward to say how great he is. And if some of those people can impeach testimony of some of the alleged victims, it may really help him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow…just…wow.</p>
<p>I wonder if these comments are used against him in court, and he is convicted, if he will appeal based on incompetent counsel. Because if his lawyer sanctioned this conversation, I would see his point.</p>
<p>Consolation,
I hope that you don’t think I’m jumping all over you as well, but I have been thinking about your friend since I read your post this morning and I don’t think you can base any theory or conclusion on what he told you. In fact, I am no psychologist but I strongly suspect that there is a lot more to his story than he is telling you and maybe a lot more to his story than he even knows himself. I am going out on a limb here and the therapists on the thread can correct me if they like but I think it is safe to say that NO NORMALLY developing ten year old boy, gay or straight, goes looking for sex with adult men in public bathrooms. No, it is not normal and the idea that this idea could be used as an explanation for sexual abuse is extremely farfetched and even dangerous.</p>
<p>Fang And consolation have a point. And it also is how some pedophiles think that what they showing their victims is affection in their sicko brains, and they don’t use physical violence though they do use force. So maybe not hitting, but pushing, a strong hand on the back or sanduskys hand on the leg firmly, so you can’t pull away. To the pedophile because the victim doesn’t scream out or the attacker isn’t slugging them or whatever, to the pedophile, they arent hurting the child. Of course they are but it’s a justification for their actions. Its explains why Sandusky didn’t see anything wrong with his “horseplay”</p>
<p>McQueary is gonna talk on CBS News tonight:
[CBS</a> scores interview with Penn State’s Mike McQueary | Inside TV | EW.com](<a href=“http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/11/15/cbs-scores-interview-with-penn-states-mike-mcqueary/]CBS”>http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/11/15/cbs-scores-interview-with-penn-states-mike-mcqueary/)</p>
<p>^ But Sandusky knew what he did was wrong, right? In 1998, in the recorded conversation, he said it was wrong and he wished he had died or something along that line. I think he knew very well what he did and continued to do was wrong and he must have been conflicted all the time but he can’t control whatever tendency or urge he was having. Maybe it was earlier in his career, so he was more conflicted, now he has done so much, he feels more entitled and desensitized.</p>
<p>ok, the more i read, the more i cant figure this whole thing out… and i have no problem with the criticism, scorn, dislike, disgust etc with the main players in this whole thing… but i do have a problem with taking that emotion to the current players or those not involved at the time of these acts</p>
<p>i also have wondered and this is pure speculation… did mcquery have some sort of “relationship” with sandusky…which is why he didnt act to stop it at the time…was he worried he would be dragged into it and expose himself…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the Herman Cain** defense: For every boy who says I molested him, there are thousands I didn’t have sex with!</p>
<p>**Not taking a position on the veracity of the women Cain’s employer bought off. But it’s an exceptionally idiotic defense. “Arson? What do you mean arson? For every building I might have burned down, there are thousands still standing.”</p>
<p>I agree with Cardinal Fang. It would be a better outcome for the kid though obviously still completely unacceptable and horrible child abuse anyway. </p>
<p>I also think that like Consolation, when we hear about horrible crimes, our natural tendency to help protect us , is to see if there are any way we can think of possibilities where the crime is lessened, not because we feel sorry for the accused, but rather for the victim. </p>
<p>I know that having just learned right after these PSU allegations came out, I learned about a person I knew who pled guilty to crimes against a member of his family. Like Cardinal Fang, not only did I not recognize what was happening but no one did. He was up for a promotion but hadn’t pinned on when he was arrested. So many people had come in contact with him and his family and no one suspected anything. In fact, everyone thought he was doing a great job which was why he was getting promotion after promotion. So unlike the PSU case, there were no witnesses, just his own words captured in letters he wrote to the victim and which had been intercepted. I am not in the same area as the case and all I have are the news reports. But just the wording of some, but not all, of the prosecutors statement led me to hope that the worse abuse didn’t happen till the child was older. I really have nothing to back that up except that phrasing plus the fact that he pled guilty to lesser crimes than what would be called for if it happened at a younger age but of course that pleading was made to lock him up with saving the young woman’s testimony and also the government’s money plus the child wasn’t in his jurisdiction until she was older.</p>