I had not wanted to link to the conspiracy theory making the rounds — and being the lead story on Drudge for part of yesterday pretty much pushed it into the mainstream — claiming that Jerry Sandusky might have been pimping out boys from his Second Mile youth charity to wealthy Penn State donors. It’s too lurid to be true, it seemed to me, and the only one saying this might be the case was a Pittsburgh radio host who offered no proof, only an assertion that it’s true, and that two journalists are on the story. But people take this guy somewhat seriously because he wrote a column six months ago that was highly prescient about the events that have blown up in State College this week. Megan McArdle considers whether this theory, as outlandish as it is, might have merit:

At least it offers a motive.  And yet . . . it seems completely implausible.  How does one go about marketing one’s alumni relations department as a potential procurer of underage boys for wealthy pedophiles who perhaps also happen to be fans of the Nittany Lions? And how do you make sure that no one–in the department or elsewhere–tells the police?  I find these rumors basically impossible to believe.

But I certainly understand how they could have gotten started.  They fill in the great blank spot at the center of our understanding.  And it desperately needs filling.

That’s how conspiracy theories work: they make the inexplicable comprehensible. It simply couldn’t be the case that a single nut with a gun could kill President Kennedy. There had to have been more to it (people think). It’s more comforting to believe that there is some rational thread linking horrifying events, because then they become comprehensible. It is far more frightening to think that these things just happen, and that what we think is solid and predictable actually is no such thing.

The Sandusky conspiracy theory brought to mind the hideous case from Belgium from the 1990s, involving a pedophile serial murderer named Marc Dutroux.  The Belgian people could not believe all the basic mistakes the police made that allowed Dutroux to carry on for years kidnapping, torturing, and murdering girls. The errors were so egregious that many people came to believe that people in high places were covering up for Dutroux. Dutroux himself fed this belief by saying that he was part of a larger conspiracy. The theory was that he was providing kids to be used and tortured in child porn and sex rings involving Belgian elites. A witness testified that this was the case, but her testimony (and her sanity) was later called into serious question. I may not remember this correctly, but I believe it was firmly established that Dutroux was part of an international child sex ring, but that it was not at all established that this had anything to do with Belgian elites.

Still, people were understandably desperate for a reason why Dutroux had gotten away with something so unutterably horrible for so long. Conspiracy theory suited those needs.

Why, though, did the DA who declined to prosecute Sandusky in 1998 go missing in 2005, and is now presumed dead, even though no body was ever found? He’s been declared legally dead — but is he? Hmm.