Here is the thing, Seth.
It's likely that Sandusky was guilty of something, vis a vis illegal activity, even if it wasn't coercive. The fact that he was in a position of authority and fame would give him license to get away with things that the average joe and jane in a lesser position could. And I think all of us can believe he would lie when asked if he was an MAA. Same as with any celebrity. Of course, this doesn't mean that his activities were abusive in a true sense, i.e., that he didn't use any form of coercive blackmail to get any boys to have relations with him. And yes, some people will want to give him a free pass for being a celebrity, whereas others will swing in the opposite direction by overreacting and being more eager to hang him or make an example out of him than they would a typical bloke.
The boys whom he had relations with may be no more his "victims" than Monica Lewinsky was a "victim" of coercive sexual activity when she gave blow jobs to Bill Clinton. These boys may or may not have been the equivalent of star struck "groupies," as Lewinsky was. By "keeping them quiet," I would like to see that phrase better defined, and found relations with Sandusky to be exciting for that reason. If he told them, "I'll get in big trouble if this got out, please keep that in mind," well, that is actually the truth, and hardly a form of professional blackmail. But if he said something like, "If this gets out, I will hate you for life, and you will have proven disloyalty to our organization and all that it represents," then that, my dear, would indeed be a case of emotional blackmail.
My point is, when a celebrity gets into trouble for something like this, the MAA community has to accept that it's likely going to be a complicated case that needs a large degree of objective investigation and analysis, including extensive interviews for all involved both directly and peripherally, to determine what may have been the full truth. The whole fiasco could be a broad combination of truths and lies echoing from corners of the media soundstage.
The fact that Sandusky was a celebrity does make a difference in the sense that it was possible he felt a sense of entitlement that the average person would not feel that emboldened him to pursue relations with those boys, and that laws and rules which apply to the average joe do not apply to him. Isn't that the very lesson that many celebrities routinely teach us, both those in Hollywood and those in the political sphere? On the other hand, we must not engage in overcompensation by being quick to thrash him before such a thorough investigation was even conducted (and a grand jury hearing hardly counts, people), just to try to make ourselves look and feel good in the eyes of both the public and ourselves; it's not "objective" to condemn before all the facts are weighed.
Another problem is whether or not to believe the words of the youths involved in cases like this unless they happen to say what we want to hear. The point is, regardless of whether someone "got to them" or not, what they have to say is important and should be considered, but at the same time, should never be taken at complete face value if the evidence does not coincide with it, and if a thorough investigation cannot find proof that what they said wasn't the truth. But as Gatekeeper said, if a youth in such a situation insists they were not abused as they define the term, over and over again, and do not want charges pressed, and no evidence can be uncovered to fully refute their allegations, and they are entirely unsymptomatic, then the matter should indeed be dropped, and the youth given the benefit of the doubt. If this is not done, then we punishing Sandsusky for reasons that have nothing to do with exacting justice.