“From March 2009 through November 2011, did Sandusky molest any young boys who were unknown to prosecutors and weren‘t part of the trial? It seems unlikely given the international news focus on the Sandusky case and litigation by victims well under way.” ~~ Tom Corbett apologist Brad Bumsted, “Now comes the Kane probe ...” Tribune-Review, Jan. 19, 2013
International news focus? Litigation by victims? Between March 2009 and November 2011?
The Patriot-News was the first to report, on March 31, 2011, that “Penn State football legend Jerry Sandusky is the subject of a grand jury investigation into allegations that he indecently assaulted a teenage boy.”
The first civil litigation brought by a victim in the case was filed in November 2011, after Sandusky's arrest, by "John Doe A."
How, exactly, did international news focus and litigation by victims, which didn't happen until 2011, influence Sandusky's behavior in 2009 and 2010?
Tom Corbett is certainly no less guilty of leaving a door wide open if no one walked through it, but given what we know about the behavior of sexual offenders, what are the chances that a lifelong predator in his 60's, whose victims likely number in the hundreds, simply ... stopped ... for more than two years? Especially given that the "international news focus and litigation by victims" that Bumsted imagines might have inhibited him would not occur for another two years? (does anyone proofread Bumsted's column?)
If only Corbett had had access to experts, who might know a little something about the behavior of sexual offenders. Experts, perhaps, like the members of Corbett's much-vaunted Child Predator Unit.
Whether Sandusky continued to molest children after Corbett received the first complaint is what Bumsted calls "the gazillion-dollar question." Given that Corbett is guilty of the same offense whether Sandusky did or didn't, we appraise that question at slightly less than a "gazillion" dollars and propose instead a more valuable one: Why was an investigative unit that Corbett created specifically to respond to accusations of child abuse not involved in investigating the most explosive allegation of child abuse in Corbett's entire tenure as Attorney General?
Unfortunately for Corbett and his media cheerleaders like Bumsted, the obvious answer to that question -- they were too busy scrambling to indict the previously ignored John Perzel and Bill DeWeese before Corbett formally announced his gubernatorial campaign -- leads to an even more inconvenient one: Why was Corbett scrambling to indict House members in 2009 when he'd supposedly spent the previous two years investigating all four caucuses?