Of course that is a possibility!
In the example I gave above about my personal situation from years ago, the phone call that my Dad thinks he had could not have happened, at least in the way he remembered it. Same kind of thing - he had the caller’s son in my situation in his memory, but he could not have been right (sorry for lack of detail, it’s just too convoluted to go through). However, his memory about the larger event/circumstances was “right”. The event took place, just not quite the way he remembered it, and the specific way he remembered it going down was demonstrably wrong. (I’m not so certain my version was right, just that it didn’t have specific contradictions that my dad’s had.)
Cross-gender child sex assault is somewhat common, although less so for the ages Sandusky seemed to target: The relationship between victim age and gender crossover among sex offenders. - PubMed - NCBI
[quote=“Tom, post:7909, topic:2287”]Another that links Jim Tarman seems a huge leap of interpretation.
It’s also interesting that the huge majority of the places of abuse mentioned were not on PSU property or were on PSU property, but occurred during a larger TSM event.
Lots of stuff the media won’t bother to report.[/quote]
The reporting on this is terrible. I posted a radio interview with my old high school chum Tony Lubrano and deleted it after listening to part of it. The hosts graduated from a firm attack on Tony’s spin (that while uncomfortable, at least made sense) to a vicious personal attack. This stuff draws out the worst in people.
Separately, I’ve always thought the idea that this whole thing came late in life to Sandusky was a little odd. Just an opinion. The notion that he established TSM to groom children is a freaking nightmare for all involved.