Come on man. I understand the point you are trying to make but you're missing the real point. There were 2 psyche reports. Chalmers and Seasock. Their conclusions were opposite. So why didn't the FA use the Chalmer one? Perhaps they went with the Seasock one because it fit with what they wanted, which was a coverup. People were on take. Get it? There's no other explanation as to why they ignored the other report in a case as vile as this.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
My read of the report indicates that Seasock was viewed as the definitive authority on the subject.
Chambers had already weighed in before Seasock was assigned to the case.
It is clear that many tried to change Seasock's point of view - many wanted to prosecute.
But Seasock held to his obviously misguided guns. It seemed to me that he led the kid into making statements that relieved Sandusky of liability.
When the designated County Investigator announces in a report that nothing inappropriate occurred the DA is really put in a bad position.
If I'm Sandusky's lawyer, all I do is call Seasock as my witness and hold up his report. And that's pretty much the end of the case.
Now, do I think that "politics" had no role? Well, not in the strictest sense. I don't believe that the DA was pressured by the school.
I do think that the DA understood that Sandusky had a monumental reputation in the community and I suspect that the Seasock report not only foreshadowed a not guilty verdict, but also, as I said in the OP, gave the DA some measure of cover - it allowed him to avoid what might have been viewed as an unpopular prosecution.
My OP really meant to convey a narrow observation - that Seasock took what was pretty obvious and helped sink a criminal prosecution with a really dumb conclusion.
