Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="kingtidge, post: 322460, member: 994"]
[URL='http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/breaking/Penn-State-Police-Had-Warnings-About-Sandusky-in-1998-144077776.html']Have a read...[/URL]
 
I misread the report where the psychologist is concerned - when they said "State College Psychologist..." I took that to mean she worked for PSU - obviously not the case. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
However, your contention that the Seasock report is the reason the investigation was closed is still absolute nonsense.

What stopped the process was Penn State police deliberately ignoring evidence (Chamber's Report) - they had it all - both contradictory reports from psychologist Chambers and the welfare dept. report- all within a 90 page investigation report and they closed case without resolution of conflicting assessments of both reports. Shreffler knew there was a conflict with both evidentiary reports and let the case be closed anyways.
 
Also: [B]"A senior administrator of a local victim resource center [an advocate for victims!!!] familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was 'severely hampered' by Seasock's report."[/B]
 
That is proof of nothing - simply a statement from a welfare official trying to (unsuccessfuly I might add) put a rationalization on why no one investigated further.
 
You cannot claim the statement as a valid reason why the case was closed - sorry. It's an unsubstantiated statement - plain and simple. It's true it was said - but that is it.
 
The actual facts of what happened, as stated above, lead to a completely opposite conclusion.
 
Penn State Police knew about both conflcting reports and closed the case anyways without resolving obvious and alarming conflicts between both reports.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?