Not much going by in this thread over the weekend - same old same old, for the most part. I do have a couple of additional observations, though.
- At the risk of further inflaming the self-righteous pricks who infest this thread, it occurred to me that the evidence is not completely clear that there even was an actual rape in the 2002 incident, regardless of what McQueary may have told the others.
Because if you look at the description of the 1998 incident in the indictment (Victim 6) it would appear that Sandusky had that kid in virtually the same position as the 2002 incident (Victim 2). In the shower, “holding the boy’s back against his chest”. And the investigation uncovered another kid (BK) who was subjected to nearly identical shower treatment, and the same was apparently also true of Victim 3 (& Victim 5).
And yet, despite an investigation by the police - the real police, whose investigative skills are so highly esteemed by Paterno-bashers - and DA, the conclusion was that it was inappropriate behavior by Sandusky - “boundary issues” in the words of the police investigator - and there was no allegation of rape.
So now the question is what happened in 2002? The entire allegation of rape rests solely on the observation of McQueary, who was probably at some distance, with the shower water running, and was apparently considerably agitated at the time. I would venture that he probably only got a short look at the scene, and that he did not stick around to pin down the details, based on his reaction. How likely is a person in that situation and frame of mind to be able to distinguish between a rape and the type of behavior that Sandusky apparently engaged in in 1998 & with the other victims?
I am no anal sex expert, and I’m aware that some of our resident Moral Consciences have declared that there can be no mistaking anal sex, but given that many of these same people have made other declarations with equal conviction on matters about which they clearly know nothing, my inclination is not to put a whole lot of weight on that.
[The only victim in the GJ report that Sandusky attempted to anally rape was Victim 4, and he had very limited success.]
If the case against Sandusky goes to trial I would imagine that McQueary will be cross examined on these points, so this would become a bit more clear.
OTOH, the actual victim has not come forward (at least at the time of the GJ report) and if in fact there was no rape, it lessens the likelihood that he will, since the guy might not recognize himself as the victim in that incident.
[Note to nitwits: this is NOT to say that the alternative activities by Sandusky are acceptable etc. etc. etc., but it does have a bearing on what corrective measures might be required and whether the fact that he was not jailed was indication of a cover-up, as discussed previously.]
- There is room for speculation about the mindsets of (some of) the Righteous Avengers in this thread and elsewhere. Truth is that I thought of this last week, but wasn’t going to comment on it, because it’s speculative and speculation about the motives of one’s opponents is frequently unproductive. Also, it’s undoubtedly only true of a minority of these people. However, I see that over the weekend Huerta and some of his esteemed colleagues have opened a discussion of the motivations and mindsets of their own opponents, and I figure in that case it might be a more complete picture if we noted that there’s also another side to the coin.
It’s a fairly well known fact that many of the most violent homophobes tend to show sexual arousal when exposed to homoerotic imagery, and IIRC homophobia is actually correlated with a tendency to homosexual arousal. Not what you’d expect without thinking about it, but apparently for some people homophobia is a way of suppressing or otherwise distancing themselves from their own homosexual urges, which they despise in themselves.
One would have to think that to the extent that this dynamic exists in (some) homosexuals, it would be even more so in the case of pedophiles, since societal opprobrium for pedophilia is far stronger than that which exists for homosexuality. So it would be logical to assume that the howling mob contains a higher percentage of repressed pedophiles than the general population, let alone those who are comfortable enough to take an unpopular position on these issues.
As a possible case in point, I remember one incident from about 15 years ago. It was during one of these periodic pedophile controversies that come up every few years. In this case, a friend of mine told me that he had known the Alleged Perpetrator (AP) a few years back, during the time of a previous pedophile controversy. And at the time, the AP was one of the strongest string-him-up-first-ask-questions-later vigilantes out there.
[OTOH, I should note that I myself was unsure whether the AP was in fact guilty in that incident. The allegations arose in the course of a very bitter divorce, and seemed to rest largely on some dubious - and possibly conflicting - doctors’ determinations. So it’s either an example of the above, or it’s just an ironic incident, one way or the other.]
[Disclaimer for Dummies: as above, this would apply to a minority of these people. Another minority are thoughtful people who simply made a different judgment than me and those who agree with me. And the vast majority are simply a simpleminded mob of fellow travelers with inflamed imaginations.]