Bees - I was an assistant DA in Philadelphia.
Trust me.
When the lead investigator issues a report that vindicates the potential defendant it is devastating even if some other professional disagrees with the conclusion.
You're just dead wrong on that part of it.
His stupid report made it very difficult to proceed. And as I also indicated in the part of the post that you did not quote, or another post that I made in this thread - I don't recall - that at the very least his report gave the DA cover not to proceed.
So, I think we are saying very similar things, but I also think that your observation that the DA should have said "Oh well, so the lead County Investigator says nothing happened, big deal, I'll just use another report that says something did happen," is a bit naive, particularly when you're dealing with a potential defendant who, up to that point, had a spotless and admirable reputation.
You can't pick and choose the evidence. The defense is going to call Seasock and make the prosecution case look very bad.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard of proof. You just can't prosecute a guy when the expert says that there is way more than reasonable doubt. It's a waste of time and money and puts the DA's own prosecutorial reputation on the line.
I am not the sharpest blade in the drawer - I admit it.
But on this one, I think I'm right.
