Re: I don't; passing the buck doesn't cut it

Sandusky was a scumbag. I'm with you on that. It's a very rare 10-year-old who would want a dick up their ass, I don't care what the BLers say. They're biased as hell anyway.

In theory I agree, but...

Every case where a guy is uncovered after having been active with many different minors (boys or girls alike, and any of the relevant age range) for many years continuously... I find it hard to believe that it was actual rape (ie, use of physical force or coercion). One instance of rape can be hidden - by a combination of the child's fear, the parents' complicity and a plausible story blaming innocent accidents where the kid got hurt. Many instances of rape over a long period with many different minors... each one stretches it more and more until it simply stops being believable. In the end I find only two possible conclusions: either the instances of de facto rape were few in number and involved few minors, but upon surfacing, other minors or parents came out for blood, or the instances of de jure rape were many and involved many minors but were overwhelmingly consensual for the minors so they never felt the need or wish to denounce - and yeah, both are really not mutually exclusive, at that. I can see that.

An intrafamilial case? Believable - families have a lot of incentive and nearly every chance to protect an abuser. But this was extrafamilial.
Usually consensual but one or a few times a kid said no and he didn't take a no for an answer? Probable - he should've known better, but horniness or pride could have sometimes got the better of him.
Abuse of a position of trust? Possible - it sure happens. But still, to believe no allegations surfaced for so many years outside the PSU system still dents this theory. Lincoln's rule applies.
Rape all or most of the time? Hmmm. No child or teen speaking? No parents noticing anything odd? Or no parents pursuing action thereupon? For so many years? Hmmm. Greater than zero chance, yes, but still hard to believe.

It is not different to any other particular crime. Someone has never killed anyone and kills one person; can be undetected. Someone kills 20 people; they're leaving a pattern behind. Someone has pot in their backyard greenhouse, next to the tomatoes; can sell undetected. Someone runs a millionaire drug operation; everyone knows there's a drug baron in town. And so on and so forth. It is believable that someone rapes one boy undetected; maybe a few boys. It just stops being believable that someone rapes many boys undetected - for about the same reasons that someone who rapes many adults is more likely to be detected than someone who only raped one.

Personally, for all I have read of this case, I don't think the truth is anywhere - that is, I don't believe he is guilty of everything he has been accused of; but neither do I believe that he is entirely innocent of it. And further I do not believe anyone will ever know the whole truth. But the story the police is telling still sounds to me as an extraordinary claim, of the kind that would require extraordinary proof. Which of course, is going to be found lacking, just because of the time passed - even if all actors were 100% honest and 100% competent.

As for the precise allegation you cite, it shows the pitfalls. Supposing the visual is accurate - it still says not enough. There is no reason to suppose that was the first encounter between Sandusky and the boy, and therefore no reason to suppose the boy hadn't been groomed to at least tolerate the action, even if not actively like it. It sure doesn't sound like he was physically forcing it, because I seriously don't think anyone walking in on a physically violent act would have stayed quiet that easily - this was Pennsylvania we're talking about, not China.