First of all, those who made comments under the thread "Dr. Eusebio Explains More About RMS" regarding the sexual allegations will not be published because I have closed the thread to all sexual allegations, so you would need to rewrite you comments under this OP. Apparently, an anonymous commenter made a comment about Mr. De Plata's testimony, and the thread was diverted away from the OP and into a new topic.
Secondly, my comments were misconstrued. I did not say that the alleged victim was a willing participant. I said that Ramon's testimony appeared to make the alleged victim a willing participant. Why? Because of the way his testimony went. According to Mr. De Plata, he got up to use the restroom. On the way to the restroom, he saw Father Antonio, an altar server about his age, and Archbishop Apuron (who was a seminarian at that time) engaged in oral sex. He then turned away and continued on his way to the restroom.
Many people would find this behavior odd. If, in fact, the young boy was in great distress, would the witness actually turn away and continue on his way to the restroom? The older brother who also saw everything obviously did the same thing. Why did these two ignore the 10 year old boy who was being abused?
This behavior is odd especially after hearing the testimony of Leo Tudela. Mr. Tudela stated that he was crying and shaking all over while he was being abused by a seminarian and by Father Louis. But in Mr. De Plata's testimony, he saw the 10 year old engaged in a sexual act. He said nothing about the boy crying, shaking, or anything of that nature. He saw the 10 year old performing oral sex. And then he turned away and continued on his way to the restroom.