1. Virtually no evidence of struggleI would add some others that occur in child molestation accusations:
2. The attacker is invited to the victim’s house OR the victim willingly went to the attacker’s house
3. Authorities are alerted days, weeks, or even months after the rape
Lack of objective evidenceAll of these were present with Jerry Sandusky.
Complaints only made years later
Inconsistencies explained by recovered memories
Complainers suing for big bucks
An implausible conspiracy covered up the crime
One of the creepier things about the Sandusky case was how people like Bob Costas could somehow do his own psycho-analysis and decide that he had the mind of a child molester. How would Costas know that, unless he were a child molester himself? Now every time I look at Costas on TV, I think that he is a pervert.
Well I think Sandusky was as guilty as sin. I mean, one accuser is something, multiples is pretty bad. Also, didn't a coach admit to seeing something? But yes, claims of abuse or rape always seem to rise after a couple start divorce proceedings. Odd, not one Police report, not one witness, not one hospital record, yet they swear they dealt with years of abuse.
P.S Bob Costas is a self serving ass
There was one witness, Mike McQueary, who was a coach and not a victim. However he only claimed that he saw a rape many years later, has no explanation for why he did not stop the rape, and is also suing the university for millions of dollars.
But in 1998, police eavesdropped on a conversation where Sandusky CONFESSED to inappropriate conduct with a child.
I am not disputing that Sandusky has some conduct that most people would consider inappropriate. The police knew about that 1998 incident, and he was not charged. I question the evidence for anal rape and the other crimes for which he was convicted.
This is what the Catholic Church said too, is still saying. There were no witnesses besides victims in most of the Catholic Church rape cases.
Im sort of creeped out by your "Free Sandusky" platform. Its common to have a huge distrust of the system when someone suffers the losses you have suffered. But keep in mind that the criminal justice system is flawed but it rewards defendants with money. Sandusky had money, had the best defense money can buy and lost. I consider the matter closed. But just consider that your reaction to the Sandusky verdict is more about what you have suffered?
There are indeed cases against the Catholic Church which are invented to collect damages.
There are other examples of public hysteria driving false prosecutions. See the McMartin preschool trial.
Post a Comment