People specializing in hindsight, might be quick to place blame on the people or institutions who are victimized for the cover by the abusers, but such people should also carefully scrutinize the mastery of deception used by abusers. Sandusky had the best possible cover in Paterno and he stayed there, probably knowing that such conduct was not even conceivable to the super moral Paterno.
On the other hand, the recent Sandusky trial should prove again that our sensitivity to this problem cannot be too great. Thank goodness the jury in Pennsylvania had the character to stand up and believe the children. So many of these cases disappear because the victims are either too young to tell or unable to withstand brutal cross examination and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. I was encouraged to hear one young juror say, “They planted some seeds of doubt, but not reasonable doubt. The damage done by the fact that no one stands up for the abused child greatly exacerbates the damage from the abuse.